Skip to main content

Full text of "Minutes"

See other formats


SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 1223 06446 9845 




sis 




San Francisco Public Library 

Government Information Center 
San Francisco Public Library 
100 Larkin Street, 5th Floor 
San Francisco, C A 94102 

REFERENCE BOOK 

Not to be taken from the Library 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2013 



http://archive.org/details/2minutes2002sanf 




City and County of San Francisco cityHaii 

J J 1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Meeting Minutes Goodie piace 

San Francisco, CA 

Finance Committee 94102-4689 

Members: Supervisors Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin and Sophie Maxwell 

Clerk: Gail Johnson 

Wednesday, January 09, 2002 10:00 AM City Hall, Room 263 

Regular Meeting 

Members Present: Mark Leno, Aaron Peskin, Sophie Maxwell. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:10 a.m. 

011939 [Japan Center Garage Public Parking Lease between CCSF and San Francisco Japan Center Garage 
Corporation] 

Resolution approving the Japan Center Garage Public Parking Lease by and between the City and County of 

San Francisco and the City of San Francisco Japan Center Garage Corporation. (Parking and Traffic 

Department) 

10/31/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

12/12/01, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Ronald Szeto, 

Acting Director, Parking Authority, Department of Parking and Traffic; Jeff Mori, President, Japan Center Parking Corporation; Rob 

Eshelman, Legislative Assistant to Supervisor Gonzalez; Judi Nihei, Acting Executive Director, Japantown Task Force, Inc. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Ronald Szeto, Acting Director. Parking Authority, Department of Parking and 
Traffic: Rob Eshelman, Legislative Assistant to Supervisor Gonzalez: Jeff Mori, President, Japan Center 
Parking Corporation: Caryl ho, Vice President, Japantown Task Force, Inc.: Steve Nakajo, Vice President, 
Japan Center Garage: Judi Nihei, Acting Executive Director. Japantown Task Force, Inc.; Chris Durazo, 
Japantown Task Force, Inc.; Gary Kitahata; Paul Osaki, Japanese Cultural and Community Center; Sandy 
Mori. 

RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



012188 [Grant - Department of Parking and Traffic] 
Supervisor Leno 

Resolution authorizing the Executive Director of the Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) to retroactively 
apply for, accept, and expend funds from a cooperative agreement with the Federal Highway Administration 
(FHWA) for a pedestrian safety engineering study (with federal funding of $155,735) and to execute any 
necessary documents. 

12/10/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Frank Markowitz, Pedestrian Program 
Manager, Department of Parking and Traffic. 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco I PHaUd m 5:52 Mi O* V2/94 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes January 9, 2002 



012221 [Approval of Lease with the United States Department of Agriculture at West Field Cargo Building 1] 

Resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a Lease with the United States Department of 
Agriculture for space in West Field Cargo Building 1 . (Airport Commission) 
12/12/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cathy Widener, San Francisco Airport; John 
Kennedy, Deputy City Attorney. 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



012281 | Airport Concession Lease] 

Resolution approving a lease and operating agreement for operating the Self Service Luggage Cart Program, 
Between Smarte Carte, Inc., and the City and County of San Francisco, Acting by and through its Airport 
Commission. (Airport Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

12/19/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Peter Nardoza, Deputy Director, San 
Francisco Airport; Lou Cesario, Director of Operations and Development, Smarte Carte, Inc.; John Kennedy, 
Deputy City Attorney; Daniel Lynch, Business Representative, Teamsters Local 665. 
Continued to J/23/02. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



012232 [California Energy Commission Grant] 

Resolution authorizing the General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to accept and 
expend a grant from the California Energy Commission in the amount of $265,000 to support lighting and 
HVAC retrofits at City facilities and waiving inclusion of indirect costs in the grant budget. (Public Utilities 
Commission) 

1 2/1 3/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Fred Weiner, Director of Planning and 
Development, Hetch Hetchy Water and Power, Public Utilities Commission. 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 5:52 PM on 3/2/04 

3 1223 06446 9845 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes January 9, 2002 



012264 [Agreement to Purchase Lots 25 & 26 in Assessor Block 6188] 
Supervisor Peskin 

Resolution approving and authorizing an agreement for the purchase of real property located on Alberta Street 
in Visitacion Valley, to retain as public open space for a purchase price of $240,000; adopting findings that the 
conveyance is exempt from Environmental Review and is consistent with the City's General Plan and Eight 
Priority Policies of City Planning Code Section 101.1; and authorizing the Director of Property to execute 
documents, make certain modifications and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution. (Real Estate 
Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

12/19/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marc McDonald, Director of Property, Real 
Estate Division, Department of Administrative Ser\>ices; Fran Martin, Visitacion Valley Greenway; Franco 
Mancini, Friends of McLaren Park; Anne Seeman, Visitacion Valley Greenway; Deanna Mitchell, Visitacion 
Valley Planning Alliance. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Leno, Peskin, Maxwell 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 12:51 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at 5:52 I'M 







[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



CITY AND COUNTY S **4^U » OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Hf§P 

.BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

9 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



TO: ^Finance Committee 

FROM: 1 Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 01-1939 



January 3, 2002 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JAN - 8 2X2 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
December 12, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 



Location: 
Purpose of Lease: 
Lessor: 
Lessee: 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Resolution approving the Japan Center Garage Public 
Parking Lease by and between the City and County of 
San Francisco (through the DPT) as lessor and the City of 
San Francisco Japan Center Garage Corporation as 
lessee. This resolution would authorize the DPT to enter 
into a 15-year lease, with one 15-year option, without the 
use of competitive bidding, with the existing lessee, the 
Japan Center Garage Corporation, a non-profit 
corporation, as lessee, to manage the City-owned Japan 
Center Garage parking facilities located at 1610 Geary 
Boulevard. 

1610 Geary Boulevard between Fillmore and Laguna 

Management of Japan Center Parking Garage Facilities 

City and County of San Francisco 

City of San Francisco Japan Center Garage Corporation 
(JCGC), a nonprofit corporation 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



No. ofSq. Ft. 



Annual Rent and Net 
Parking Revenues 
Payable By JCGC to 
the City's Off-Street 
Parking Fund: 



Utilities and 
Janitorial Services 
Payable by Lessee 
from Parking 
Revenues: 



Term of Lease: 

Right of Renewal: 
Description: 



The Japan Center Parking Garage facilities (Garage) 
contains 352,100 square feet and accommodates 920 
vehicles. 



$1.00 over the fifteen-year term of the lease; plus, 75 
percent of net revenues, consisting of estimated gross 
revenues of $2,830,000 less Parking Taxes at 20 percent 
or $566,000 of gross revenues 1 , less operating expenses of 
an estimated $1,325,000, resulting in estimated net 
revenues to the City of $704,250 annually based on 
existing parking rates. 



All costs for utilities and janitorial services would be 
approved annually by the Controller and the DPT as part 
of their approval of all operating costs under the existing 
and proposed lease and are the responsibility of the 
Lessee. 

The lease term is fifteen years, commencing on December 
1, 2001 or upon approval of the Board of Supervisors and 
expiring on December 1, 2016. The City can terminate the 
lease without cause at any time, upon 90 days notice. 

One option to extend the lease for an additional fifteen 
years. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Department 
of Parking and Traffic to enter into a lease, without using 
a competitive bid process, with JCGC, a nonprofit 
corporation, to manage the Japan Center Garage facilities 
located at 1660 Geary Boulevard. According to Section 
17.11 of the Administrative Code, the Parking and Traffic 
Commission can lease a parking facility, without a 
competitive process, to a nonprofit corporation for the 



1 Parking Taxes are 25 percent of Parking Fees and are included in posted rates, so when calculating 
Parking Taxes from Gross Revenues they equal 20 percent of Gross Revenues. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



purpose of facilitating the financing of a parking facility, 
as authorized and approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

The Garage is comprised of two parking structures that 
accommodate a total of 920 vehicles. According to Mr. 
Ronald Szeto of the Department of Parking and Traffic, 
the Garage is owned by the City and currently leased by 
the City to the JCGC. 

In 1999, the Board of Supervisors approved: (a) the 
dissolution of the City of the San Francisco Western 
Addition Parking Corporation (WAPC), a non-profit 
corporation, which was the prior Garage lessee; (b) the 
transfer of the remaining assets and liabilities of WAPC 
to JCGC, a non-profit corporation; (c) a five year lease 
commencing on December 1, 1999 and expiring on 
November 30, 2004, with the JCGC as lessee for the 
Japan Center Garage (see Comment No. 1); and (d) 
acceptance of a gift to the City of $550,000 from WAPC for 
the renovation of the Peace Plaza at the Japanese 
Cultural Trade Center. According to Mr. Szeto, the use of 
a non-profit corporation facilitates lease revenue 
financing at minimal risk to the City. 

Under the current lease with JCGC, which has been in 
effect since December 1, 1999, the Japan Center Garage 
Corporation allocates 85 percent of the Garage's net 
revenues, to the City's Off-Street Parking Fund. Under 
the proposed new lease, 75 percent, instead of 85 percent 
of net revenues, would be allocated to the Off-Street 
Parking Fund. According to Mr. Szeto, this percentage 
reduction would result in reduced parking revenues of an 
estimated $103,250 annually to be allocated to the Off- 
Street Parking Fund. Mr. Szeto states that the net 
revenue for FY 2000-2001 for the City will be 
approximately $807,500 at the 85 percent rate while 
under the proposed lease, the anticipated net revenue of 
allocating 75 percent of the Garage's net income to the 
Off-Street Parking Fund will be approximately $704,250 
annually, or $103,250 less, as shown in Attachment I 
provided by the DPT. 

Under the existing lease, 15 percent of net revenues are 
transferred to a capital account for the Garage. Under 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

the proposed lease, the Japan Center Parking Corporation 
will transfer 25 percent of net revenues to this capital 
account to be used for Garage capital improvements. This 
percentage allocation for capital improvements would be 
derived from the corresponding reduced allocation to the 
Off-Street Parking Fund. According to Mr. Szeto, the 
increased contribution to the capital account, from 15 
percent of net revenues to 25 percent of net revenues, has 
been proposed because under the current lease, the Japan 
Center Garage has been insufficiently funded for capital 
projects. Mr. Szeto further reports that at the time of the 
dissolution of WAPC and formation of JCGC, WAPC 
transferred $589,335 to JCGC for the capital account. In 
Attachment III, provided by DPT, Mr. Szeto provides 
further details on the need for increased capital funds of 
JCGC. Under the existing lease, the capital fund account 
can have an accumulated balance of up to a maximum of 
$1 million. Under the proposed lease, the capital fund 
account can have an accumulated balance of up to a 
maximum of $2 million. If the capital fund at any time 
exceeds the current maximum of $1 million or the 
proposed maximum of $2 million, such excess funds must 
be transferred to the City's Off-Street Parking Fund. The 
balance of the capital fund account is currently $296,322, 
according to Mr. Szeto. 

Mr. Szeto reports that under the current and proposed 
lease terms, JCGC must obtain Parking and Traffic 
Commission authorization before expending any funds 
from the capital account. Under the terms of the 
proposed lease, the Controller and the Parking and 
Traffic Commission will continue to have review and 
approval authority for the annual budget of the Garage, 
including expenditures from the capital account. 

According to Mr. Szeto, the Japan Center Garage 
Corporation would continue to contract for management 
of the Garage with a parking operator to be selected 
under a Bid/Request for Proposals (RFP) process in 
accordance with the lease agreement. Presently, the 
garage operator is Ampco System Parking. JCGC must 
employ a professional parking operator with a staff 
experienced in the management and operation of public 
parking facilities. The selection of the parking operator is 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

subject to approval by both the Parking and Traffic 
Commission and the Board of Supervisors in accordance 
with Section 17.11 of the Administrative Code. The 
current agreement with Ampco System Parking, which 
was not previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, 
is now on a month-to-month basis. Mr. Szeto reports that 
the JCGC is currently conducting a competitive bid/RFP 
process for a new parking operator agreement which will 
be subject to Board of Supervisors approval. 

Mr. Szeto further reports that under the terms of the 
lease, Japan Center Garage Corporation would provide 
the Japantown Task Force, a non-profit corporation, with 
$50,000 annually for five years, from January 1, 2002 
through December 31, 2007, from garage parking 
revenues to be expended for marketing for Japantown and 
also to create a long-term conceptual plan for community 
businesses. Attachment II, provided by DPT, describes 
how the Japantown Planning, Preservation and 
Development Task Force was established and provides a 
list of the 49 former members of the Japantown Planning, 
Preservation and Development Task Force. Mr. Szeto 
advises that the Japantown Planning, Preservation and 
Development Task Force dissolved upon the 
establishment of the Japantown Task Force, whose 15 
members are also listed in Attachment II. 

Comments: 1. Mr. Szeto reports that, previously, the Board of 

Supervisors requested that DPT monitor and evaluate the 
JCGC during the current lease period and make 
recommendations to terminate or extend the use of the 
not-for-profit parking corporation for the Garage. Mr. 
Szeto further reports that DPT has found JCGC to be 
successful in its management of the Garage. According to 
Mr. Szeto, for this reason the DPT has now proposed a 
new lease of 15 years with JCGC even though the existing 
lease with JCGC does not expire until November 30, 
2004. 

2. As stated above, the proposed lease term is fifteen 
years, retroactive from December 1, 2001 to November 1, 
2016, with one option to extend the lease for an additional 
fifteen years. As previously noted, the DPT already has 
an existing lease with the Japan Center Garage 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Corporation and therefore there is no need to begin the 
proposed lease on December 1, which would require 
retroactivity. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed lease to commence February 1, 

2002, instead of December 1, 2001, as discussed in 
Comment No. 2 above. 

2. Approval of the proposed resolution, as amended, is a 
policy decision for the Board of Supervisors. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 



CN 

o 
o 

CN 



o 
o 

<T\I 



o 

o 
o 



en 
en 
en 



LU ^ 



Q 



> 

O 



o 



TO 

CO 

> 



TO 
U 



m 
en 



cn 

CD 



o 



CO 
00 

m 



ao 



CD 



CO CO 

T- O 



LU 



re 



o o 

to o 

r^~ in 

■»3- CO* 

CO T- 



o CM 

O m 

in cq 

cm" o 



CM CO 

CO CO 

r- m O 

cm" in 

cm uo 

t- CM 



o 



c 
0) 
QJ 
X 

LU 



O a 



O 5 

£■ 'a 

o CO 

o o 



TO 
C 
CD 
O 

cd 

CL 



u 



CD 



U 

"3 



CM 
CO 

o" 
<u 

3 
C 
CD 
> 
CD 



CO 

Q 



CO 



CD 
CO 
CO 

OS 

CO 

in 

fe9- 



o O 



CO 


n 


LJ 


< 


T3 
CO 


£ 


JZ 


r 


T, 


Q 



o 
CD 
CJ 



o 

CL 

o 
o 

CD 

en 



c 

CO 

> 

CO 



T^ GO — 



co^ 
CL 



TO 

> 

O 

c 

CO 

cr 



_TO 

0. 



TO «*- v^. <= 

is O o > 

g^ 1 

c " m Q 

« N o 



o 

o 
en 



TO 


(c) 


ao 

CD 
TO 


— 


_n 


CQ 

o 

_c 


00 

CO 


JD 

CO 

c 


E 

CD 
> 
O 


c_ 


c 


<r 


TO 


Z 


'5s 

0) 


o 
ao 


ao 
o 

CD 

P 


O 
<— > 


"en 


CTJ 


CL 


o 


o 


- 01 

"c 


"c 
O 


"c 
O 


o 
in 
in 


h- 

CO 


TO 
O 

c. 
o 
O 


TO 
O 

c. 
o 

(3 


TO 
C 

c. 
o 

t -1 


CO 

o 

CJ 


O 

2 



CD ~ .2 



TO 

C_ 



FRANCISCO 



Attachment II 
• : Page 1 of 3 
City and County of San Francisco 




DEPARTMENT of PARtCNQ i TPAFFIC 




WILLIE LEWIS BROWN. JR., Mayor 

FSSO U HAMDUN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

RCNALD S2=T0. ACTING DIRECTOR. rARKING AUTHORITY 



MEMORANDUM 



DATE: 
TO: 

FROM: 



December 5, 2001 

Sarah Graham 

Analyst 

Budget Analyst's Office 

Ronald Szeto V ^ 
Acting Director 
Parking Authority 



RE: Japan Center Garage Corporation Lease 



Tas purpose of this memorandum is to provide a written response to the questions that 
you verbally asked to me on December 5, 2001. 

Question: H"ow were the Japanlown Plarmin?. Preservcnion and Development Ta$ j£ 
Fnrce. members appointed or selected? 

Community members whom attended town-hall meetings formed the initial members of 
the Japanrown Planning, Preservation and Development Task Force. These initial 
members (approximately 20) were not appointed by any public official. Tnese initial 
members subsequently elected officers and form an executive committee to review other 
nominated members. Tnc executive committee made recommendation to the full Task 
Force which than voted on the recommendations. 

Q<. J ZS(l n ti 2: K7to are the members nffhe Japantowi Planning, Preservation qnrf 
Development Task Fgrcg? 

Attached is a list of the current members. 



H.-^ASjaMCGanisaUiipaa CsUcrBudgsi Ktalytt Question I2-u5-01.doc 



(41 5) 5S-S.P ARK FAX (41 5} 554.9234 



IS Van Ness Avanuo, Suite 410 

8 



S-3n Francisco CA 941G2- 



Attachment II 
ya^e Z of 3- 



J.APANTQWN PLANNING. PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE 



Sandy Mon, Chair 

Neal Tanigucni, Treasure: 

War< Moriguchi, Secretary 

Hats Aizawa 

Douglas Dawkins 

Steven Dol 

Rev. Tim Dupre 

Chris Durazo 

Seiko Fujimoto 

Colin Gomez 

Geri Handa 

Rod Henmi 

Daryl Higa3hi 

Chris Hirano 

Yo Hircnaka 

David Ishida 

Sara Ishikawa 

Caryl Ito 

Richard Jue 

Karen Kal 

Rev. Masato 

Kawshstsu 

Gary KJtahata 

Sox Kltashima 

Travfe Kiyota 



Dr. Kyo D. Lee 
Csamu Machida 
Greg Warutanl 
Tak Watauba 
Jeff Mori 
Card Murata 
Kaz Naganuma 
Stave Nakajo 
Kathy NeJsen 
Rumi Okabe 
Allen Gkamoto 
Tak Onishi 
Jerry Ono 
Jon OsaKi 
PaulOsaki 
Win Paek 
Chris Schultr 
Sam Selki 
Ksnjl Tagurr.a 
Erlka Tamura 
Will Tsukamoto . 
Richard Wada 
Pamela Wu 
J.K. Yamamoto 
George Yamasakl. Jr. 



Attachment II 

Page J or. 3 — . 



TAPA_NTOWN T Tak Fora. ine 



i7K*Jtar3{rBrt.£ufe1.Senrfandoao.CaJlb.T.a 84T.5 



December 5. 2001 



Doug Dawlcis 

Cobb Gomez 
Da-vid laliida 
Ciiyi Ico, Vict Proscar 

Jc5 Mori, Prc*id-=r» 

Walk Msriguchi, SctrrsryiTrt^uTcr* 

Bcah Nakjjo 

Jot. Dtaki 

BobOttux* 

Pa:Siiono 

5.osalya.Tocil 

Miriko Wati3Libc 



* ibdiCicadE; 



Ptont: (416)345-123 Fate &S) 34W703 ^c/^sifersg^^ 



10 



'! ' : Attachr-enc III 

^p."e 1 or is 

san fRA.Nc.seo c,t y and County of San Francisco 




DEPARTMENT OF PAHKING & TP.AFFIC 



W1LUE LEWIS BROWN, JR_ Mayor 

FR50 M. HAMDUN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 




RONALO 32=70. ACTING 0IR=CT0R. PARKING AUTHORITY 

MEMORANDUM 

DATE: November 30, 200 1 

TO: Sarah Graham 

Analyst 
Budget Analyst's Office 

FROM: Ronald Szeto g,^ 

Acting Director 
Parking Authority 

RjE: Japan Center Garage Corporation Lease 



The purpose of this memorandum is to provide written response to the questions that you 
verbally asked to me on November 29, 2001. 

Questions: Explqi n why the Corporation need to increase the Capital Account from 
J5% to 25% and the maximum balance from $1.000.000 to Z2.000.0QO?, IVhv fe {he 
75% in sufficient?, and What are the future capital improvements? 

Pursuant to the existing Lease, the Corporation received and deposited S589.336 on 
December 1, 1999 transferred from the Western Addition parking Corporation. Since 
December 1, 1999, the Corporation retained and deposited 15% of net income into the 
Capital Account to fund capital expenditures. 

In almost two years, 2000 and 2001, the Corporation will expend approximately 
S467.339 (S625,890 minus SI 52,551 for debt repayment to the City) for capital 
improvement while depositing only S265 : 000 in the capital account. Fortunately, the 
Corporation received S586.336 transferred from the Western Addition Parkins 
Corporation as mentioned above. The balance as of October 31, 2001 was S295.322. 

Under the 15% scenario, the Corporation does not have the appropriate funding for all of 
the necessary capital improvements. If this situation persists, then the Corporation will 
need to defer capital works for the ventilation system and the waterproofing or borrow 
fund for said improvements Deferred waterproofing could lead to expensive structural 

reoairs. 



|i)554-PARK FAX (415) 554-9634 25 Van Neis Avenue. Sulla 410 San Francisco. CA 941C:-1S7S 

I 11 



Attachment II 
Pase 2 or 5 



By authorising the Corporation to retain and deposit 25% of net revenues, the 
Corporation will be in position to address the capital works for the ventilation system and 
the waterproofing in the next several years. Meanwhile, the Corporation will continue 
with parking equipment upgrades, lighting improvement, and to safety enhancements. 
After the ventilation improvement and waterproofing, the Corporation would begin to 
accumulate funds, up to S2, 000,000, for future needs. 

in the event that the Corporation were required to address improvements costing over 
S 1,000,000 (e.g., structural improvements from an earthquake or adding additional 
access), the Corporation would have more funds available than under the existing lease 
arrangement. 

Attached are the projected sources and uses of funds for both lease arrangements. 



H:' PARJCrNC'-C..rjssiUipan Cmirr-Budgi; Ar.uivvl Question I lOS-0'..uOC 



12 



2-5= f! 



Attachment III 
Fa se J or k ■ 



S < £ 
1 = 1 



uj a o 

S5g 



I ! 



I i 



I I I I | I 

lll-lliHi 



n i 



i i ! 



! ! 



i i ! 

ij ! 

2! j 



! ! 



II 

? ! jj [ OH I CJ] 

I Ml 



i i 



I i 
i i 



i i 



2 £ 



6 < 

•o a 



q s C 2 
5 - 2 
|*£ 

I f I 

Hi 

3 ? a. 

u a a: 



=>-=§■; 

s ! I i 
1 1 !: 1 



= ? o 



, lis 
I i 1 1 ] 

• ■!|i 

3' CL. 5. C I 










i _ 






n 2 












II 






3; ? 


1 


= 


™ * 






si m. * s s; a j s - 5: = e 

iiisssiliiflfi 



•= • s. j. I S S ' S _ 

ui u. i 3 a o o 5 o 5 



E o o o c \ - 






a a y 
I ££ 



13 



Attachment III 
Page. 4 of 4 






g- <o: g: tn 






n] «] «ji : _- v; 



• 



! ! ; ! ! i I 



■ ■ 






: i 

: 3 






: , 



ill 



i i 



! ! 



J J 



Mil 



° < a 

Efi 

a. o a: 



! I -i i i -: 



I ! ! 



i I 

i ! 



I ! i 






If 

I 1 



> < 

1 o 



u.. *. c. "3J 



si 

g. 3; 



2 ^ 5 5 § 

§ 1 1 1 i 



& » g: 5| 



If 
g. = »■ 

| 5' 

14 



z _ 

° = -5 



I § s 



S — i U 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 2 - File 01-2188 



Department: 



Item: 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 

Source of Funds: 
Required Match: 



Indirect Costs: 



Description: 



Department of Parking and Traffic (DPT) 

Resolution authorizing the Executive Director of 
the Department of Parking and Traffic to 
retroactively apply for, accept, and expend funds 
from a cooperative agreement with the Federal 
Highway Administration (FHWA) for a pedestrian 
safety engineering study and to execute any 
necessary documents. 

$155,735 

January 14, 2002 through September 30, 2002 
(eight and one half-months) 

Federal Highway Administration 

$59,288 or 27.6% of $215,023 total program cost 
including subject FHWA grant funds of $155,735. 
($42,186 from DPT and $17,102 from UC Berkeley, 
Traffic Safety Center) 

Indirect costs would be waived in order to 
maximize use of grant funds on the Pedestrian 
Safety Engineering Study. 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has 
offered to enter into a cooperative agreement with 
DPT for a pedestrian safety engineering study. 
This study would be the first phase of the 
Pedestrian Safety Engineering and Intelligent 
Transportation System-Based Countermeasures 
Program (Program). The Program is designed to 
decrease pedestrian injuries and mortality rates by 
planning and implementing Intelligent 

Transportation System (ITS) countermeasures in 
three major U.S. cities. Countermeasures are 
response measures such as curb extensions, speed 
humps, roadway lighting, and improvements in 
visibility. The FHWA is awarding $155,735 to DPT 
to conduct the proposed Engineering Study as 
Phase I of the program, with the option of awarding 
an additional $560,000 for Phase II when Phase I is 
complete. Phase I of the project would conduct the 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



$18,258 


285 


4,680 


800 


127,095 


4,000 


617 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Engineering Study to identify the scope of the 
pedestrian problem and determine appropriate 
countermeasures. The project funds would require 
DPT to test software and analytical procedures 
developed by the FHWA when analyzing 
pedestrian crashes in the City. Phase II would 
implement and evaluate the effectiveness of the 
countermeasures. 

Budget: A summary budget for the total $155,735 in FHWA 

funds for Phase I of the project are as follows: 

Personnel 

Fringe Benefits 

Travel 

Supplies 

Contractual 

Other 

Overhead 

Total $155,735 

Attachment I and II, provided by DPT contains 
additional budgetary details for the FHWA funds. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Frank Markowitz of the DPT, 

the subject grant has not yet been accepted, nor has 
the proposed agreement with the FHWA been 
executed. 

2. Mr. Markowitz reports that total program cost 
of $215,023 consists of the following 1) $155,735 in 
grant funds, or 72.4% of $215,023, 2) $42,186 in 
DPT matching funds, or 19.6% of $215,023, and 3) 
$17,102 UC Berkeley matching funds, or 7.9% of 
$215,023. 

3. According to Mr. Markowitz, the $42,186 in City 
matching funds will be provided by in-kind services 
from existing DPT engineering and planning staff, 
funded by the FY 2001-2002 DPT personnel budget 
as finally approved by the Board of Supervisors. 
These engineering and planning staff hours would 
be funded through the City's red light running 
citation revenues, and are included in the DPT 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



budget. Mr. Markowitz estimates the total 
matching costs to be $42,186 based on the following 
DPT staff: 



Position 


Hours 


Hourly 
Pay 


Hourly 
Benefits 


Overhead 
Cost 1 


Total 

Hourly 

Rate 


Total 


.08 FTE 5241 

Principal 

Investigator 


170 


$41.11 


$10.12 


$21.91 


$73.14 


$12,434 


.15 FTE 5290 Senior 
Engineer 


320 


39.73 


9.78 


21.17 


$70.68 


22,617 


.02 FTE 2822 Senior 
Engineer 


50 


31.00 


7.63 


16.52 


$55.15 


2,757 


.02 FTE 2803 Pub. 
Health Specialist 


50 


31.00 


7.63 


16.52 


$55.15 


2,757 


.01 FTE 5201 Junior 
Engineer 


30 


30.38 


7.48 


16.19 


$54.05 


1,621 


Total 












$42,186 



In addition to the $42,186 in City matching funds, 
UC Berkeley will be providing $17,102 in matching 
funds, also in the form of in-kind services from UC 
Berkeley staff, for a total ' of $59,288 for the 
required cooperative agreement matching funds. 

4. According to Mr. Markowitz, the subject grant 
funds would provide for .43 FTE student intern at 
$19/hour for 900 hours, or $17,100, and .02 FTE 
clerical support at $23.16/hour for 50 hours, or 
$1,158, for a total of $18,258 in Personnel Costs. 

5. Mr. Markowitz reports that the subject grant 
would fund $127,095 in contractual services 
performed by UC Berkeley's Traffic Safety Center 
from January 2002 through August 2002. The UC 
Berkeley Traffic Safety Center would provide a 
total of 2,014.40 consultant hours at an average 
cost of $63.09 per hour including travel, direct costs 
and indirect costs. (See Attachment III for budget 
details of the contracted services). According to Mr. 
Markowitz, UC Berkeley seeks to participate in the 



1 According to Mr. Markowitz, overhead costs consist of a 1) paid time off rate, 2) division 
overhead rate, and department overhead rate, and are calculated at 53.286% of hourly wages 
for regular, salaried employees. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Engineering Study because the Study coincides 
with the Center's central mission to assist local 
governments in California with traffic and 
pedestrian safety. Mr. Markowitz states that the 
UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center would 1) 
prepare reports and create written documents to 
meet FHWA reporting requirements, and 2) 
manage pedestrian safety data collection and data 
analysis. Mr. Markowitz states that the UC 
Berkeley Traffic Safety Center was selected on a 
sole-source basis because of their expertise in 
pedestrian and traffic safety, and because the 
FHWA grant award was based on a proposal that 
specifically included the DPT and the UC Berkeley 
Traffic Safety Center. Attachment IV, provided by 
Mr. Markowitz, is a memo describing UC 
Berkeley's selection as the consultant. 

6. Mr. Markowitz advises that after Phase I is 
complete, the cooperative agreement states that the 
FHWA would have the option of funding $560,000 
in construction costs for physical improvements in 
Phase II, or the plan implementation phase. Mr. 
Markowitz reports that if the FHWA opts not to 
fund Phase II, the DPT would seek other funding 
sources to implement the countermeasures. 

7. Attachment V is the Grant Information Form, 
which includes the Disability Access Checklist. 
According to Mr. Markowitz, the $617 reported in 
the Grant Information Form as indirect costs is 
actually DPT overhead costs, and not indirect costs 
as indicated. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Page 1 of 1 



o 

3 



m 



m 



w 



o 



o 



o 



%■ 



O 
° ""I 

■| 1 5 

3 



3 2. 

3 9 

Z 2. o 

S 3 > o 
2" OT -n 

" 2. Q. 

S 3 



en 
m 
o 

O- 



S3 

Q 

S 

a 

m 


o 

m 
CO 



en 
m 

o 

3 

o 

■z 
■> 

a 

.c 
a 

£75 



c 
c 
c 
rn 

- 

— 
c 

> 



■< 3 



O 

id 

3 



19 



NARRATIVE FOR SAN FRANCISCO CTTf & COUNTY BUDGET 
SECTION B. BUDGET CATEGORIES 
Applies only 10 Federal funds. 

6.a. Personnel. Requested Federal funds are primarily to be used to pay for 
student mtem time (for data collection and tabulation). Student interns do 
not earn benefits and are not loaded with indirect charges (overhead). 

6.b Fringe Benefits. - 24.62% of hourly wages for regular, salaried employees 
only. (See attached letter and indirect cost plan for explanation.) 

6c. Travel. Assumes 3 interstate trips each for 2 people: 6 trips 
at S700/trip 

for air fare, lodging, and meals. Also includes 60 local auto or 
public transit 
person-trips at S8 per trip. 

6. e. Supplies. Includes computer and office supplies, such as zip disks, 
cables, mailing envelopes. 

6 £ Contractual. Entirely devoted to UC Berekeley costs. No contract 
devils' 37731 ' " ° Ve:ilCad included - S « separate UC Berkeley budget sheets for 

f<w n^J Cf ' IncIudcs c °raputer software licenses and computer training 
^,000) photocopying (S400 for 4,000 copies at 10 cents per copy), graphic 
a«ign (SI ,200), fax/long distance phone (S300 for 150 transmittals/calls at 
^transmittal), and postage (S100 for 100 mailings at Sl/mailing). 

6.j. Indirect Charges. 53286% of hourly wages for regular 

salaried employees 

only. (See attached letter and indirect cost plan for explanation.) 



20 



Attachment III 
Page 1 of 1 



' o □ n o 2 



"S ; . - ■ H S 

io 3 li ° S £ S £ & iw »^ «i «* wOeo 

B -n £ i S »»» .-> .- ss 5J S5 jj •»■; j; •»•" »» -h! 

I § 2 g a |5°^»-5 1 " "" *" * T "° s - "° 5- ••■ 5,3 

_ __ . , . _- _ 

o -1 u ^ u -«-<» j - >lO* 

■Z = 5 ; - : - ---«-. S « J ».::■..«■.-. 2 .-.-?<"'-.-■-■ w o S o 

2 «« " " *" "° • -V - « •* ■ ^»«n 

«i ^ b* ^~ *«.-*--* ==--*-»- 3 = ° H 

R ^j ^° S? y.^ J"* 3- )** <■" © *£oOo2.5-^o^o — o5-5* M H ■ 

•*« S3 — S, o — M m ^i u » © -* ° tIOTOu. o ^ »w J-** 

z H S 

S;j *. ►» - u „ u - -- %m — > «8 o * 
-j;H °'.- , r J :\:-^'*':- i <' 5 Oe© 

**"*o f o! - M ?*- *• •• f w» 5T * -co o © — oS-S-^ooo^oC-Q. w n*" 

_ "O ^ © © 0\ A ^ w %* L» 2 K> -J O w M » , © t"\ n oe 2~ 

» *© °* V» © OO-^C— an £ W ^ " *- kj *» <*> jr ** 

«• 5 -i = 
go 8 .-!»-■ v g ■■ 5 - * ,, £ :-*--■■■?*•-.■-■■■ a 2' S o 



21 



Attachment IV 
Page 1 of 3 




Traffic Engineering Division 

City and County of San Francisco 

WILLIE LEWIS BROWN, JR.. MAYOR 
FRED M. HAMDUN. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 



MEMORANDUM 



TO: 



THROUGH: 



FROM: 



RE: 



Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst, Board of Supervisors 




Bond Yee 

Deputy Directbr'ancf City "rVaffic Engineer 

Dept. of Parking and Traffic 



Frank Markowitz 

Pedestrian Program Manager 

Dept of Parking and Traffic 



y~w^ 



FHWA Pedestrian Safety Engineering Study (Item No. 2, Finance 
Committee Meeting of Jan. 9, File # 01-2188) - UC Berkeley Sole 
Source Subcontract Justification 



DATE: 



January 2, 2002 



This memo responds to a request from Leanne Nhan of your office for an explanation of 
why DPT proposes to subcontract with UC Berkeley's Traffic Safety Center on a sole 
source basis to perform data analysis and report writing for the FHWA-funded pedestrian 
safety study. As described further below, UC Berkeley offers unique expertise, and 
FHWA selected the City and County of San Francisco/UC Berkeley team in national 
competition. 

General Background on Grant 

DPT has requested the Board of Supervisors to authorize us to accept and expend 
funds from a cooperative agreement with the FHWA. FHWA awarded this grant in a 
national competition in order to test "real world" application of federally developed 
software and procedures to improve pedestrian safety. In Phase 1 (with $156,000 in 
federal funding), DPT and UC Berkeley's Traffic Safety Center will identify and 
characterize "hot spot zones" (neighborhoods or areas) that should be highest priority for 
analysis and countermeasures. Potential countermeasures (such as special signs, 
automated pedestrian detection, and flashing in-pavement crosswalk lights) will be 
recommended for specific locations. The plan also will define complementary education 
and outreach efforts. 



(415) 554-2300 FAX (4 1 5) 554-2352 



25 Va/i Ness Ave , Suile 345 



San Francisco, CA 94102-4576 



22 



Attachment IV 
Page 2 of 3 



Mr. Harvey Rose 

FHWA Pedestrian Safety Study 

January 2, 2002 

Page 2 

FHWA, at its option, may fund Phase 2 implementation of the pedestrian safety plan. 
FHWA could provide 5560,000 for physical improvements. 

UC Berkeley's Unique Expertise 

No other Bay Area institution or firm offers the expertise of UC Berkeley in pedestrian 
and traffic safety. UC Berkeley's Traffic Safety Center (UCB-TSC) is a unique institution 
that brings together transportation engineering and public health experts particularty 
interested in pedestrian safety, familiar with California traffic safety laws, and 
knowledgeable about the San Francisco environment. 

Principal Investigator Martin Wachs, for example, chaired the Transportation Research 
Board Executive Committee, one of the most prestigious positions in U.S. transportation 
research. Project Manager David Ragland is the UCB-TSC director, and has already 
been working with the San Francisco Public Health DepL on a study of red light runner 
characteristics. UC Berkeley is arguably the world's leading research institute on 
intelligent transportation systems (ITS), a key focus of this study. UCB's Institute for 
Transportation Studies Technology Transfer program prepared an analysis of pedestrian 
safety for San Francisco several years ago. 



UC Berkeley's Part in Winning Award 

FHWA limited the eligible awardees to larger municipalities that own and control the 
roadway system. However, the award really was made to a San Francisco/ UC Berkeley 
team, based on an elaborate proposal primarily produced by UC Berkeley. The campus 
has primary responsibilities for managing data analysis and for writing and editing 
project reports. 



Study Schedule Not Compatible with Competitive Selection 

DPT does not have sufficient staff nor the full mix of skills to undertake this study without 
a specialized data analysis consultant FHWA was quite concerned about starting the 
study soon after award. It would not have been possible to hold a competitive selection 
after award (a process likely taking 4-8 months) without risking loss of the award. 
Therefore, a sole-source subcontract is the only practical option. 



23 



Attachment Iv 
Page 3 of 3 



Mr. Harvey Rose 

FHWA Pedestrian Safety Study 

January 2, 2002 

Page 3 



UC Berkeley Hourly Rates Competitive 

The hourly rates charged by UC Berkeley are quite competitive with the only reasonable 
alternative, transportation consulting firms. UCB senior staff will charge a maximum of 
$92 per hour (salary plus 17% fringe benefits and 50.4% indirect costs). We have 
recently reviewed proposals from several consulting firms (Wilbur Smith Associates, 
Nelson\Nygaard Associates, and DKS Associates). Their comparable range is $70 to 
$160, with most senior engineers at least $95 per hour. We can provide more details if 
necessary, but we may need to address confidentiality concerns. 

Please note the most highly paid UCB researchers are donating their time completely as 
local match. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to call DPT Pedestrian Program Manager 
Frank Markowitz at 252-4696. Thank you for your consideration. 



BMY:FM 



24 



Attachment y 

File Number: Page 1 of 3 

(Provided by Clerk of Board of Supervisors) 

Grant Information Form 

_ (Effective January 2000) 

Purpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supervisors resolutions authorizing a Department to accept and 
expend grant funds. 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying resolution: 

1. Grant Title: FHWA Pedestrian Safety Engineering Study 

2. Department: Parking and Traffic 

3. Contact Person: Frank Markowitz Telephone: 252-4696 

4. Grant Approval Status (check one): 

[X ] Approved by funding agency [ ] Not yet approved 

5. Amount of Grant Funding Approved: $155,735.00 

6a. Matching Funds Required: $ 59,288.00 ($42,186 in-kind labor from City; $17,102 from UC Berkeley) 
b. Source(s) of matching funds (if applicable): Primarily DPT Livable Streets (red light running fines) 

7a. Grant Source Agency: Federal Highway Administration 
b. Grant Pass-Through Agency (if applicable): None 

8. Proposed Grant Project Summary: 

FHWA has offered a cooperative agreement to fund an analysis of pedestrian injury patterns and development 
of an action plan to improve pedestrian safety in focus areas of San Francisco. The project will test software 
and analytical procedures developed by FHWA. It will also involve other City/County departments, 
neighborhood and advocacy groups in developing the pedestrian safety plan. At FHWA's option, the agency 
may provide Phase 2 funding to implement the plan, paying for such improvements as: in-pavement crosswalk 
lights, more visible crosswalk markings and signs, comer sidewalk bulb-outs, median pedestrian refuge 
islands, and passive detection of pedestrians to control traffic signals. 

9. Grant Project Schedule, as allowed in approval documents, or as proposed: 

Start-Date: End-Date: 

Phase 1 (Study) : January 2002 August 2002 

Optional Phase 2 (Plan implementation) could take up to an additional 40 months. 

10. Number of new positions created and funded: 1-2 part-time interns or junior engineers 

11. If new positions are created, explain the disposition of employees once the grant ends? 

nterns are hired strictly on a per-hour, as needed basis. Junior engineers facing lay-off at SFO may possibly 
)e used instead. 

1 2a. Amount budgeted for contractual services: 



25 



At tachmen t ^ 
S1 27,095 to UC Berkeley Pa S e 2 of - 

b. Will contractual services be put out to bid? 

No. UC Berkeley was an integral member of the team. The award was essentially made to DPT and to UC 
Berkeley. — 

c. If so, will contract services help to further the goals of the department's MBE/WBE 

requirements? 
N/A 

d. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? 
One-time 

13a. Does the budget include indirect costs? [X ] Yes [ ] No 

b1. If yes, how much? $617 

b2. How was the amount calculated? 53.3% of unloaded hourly rate for fulltime, permanent staff who woulc 
be charged to the grant. While FHWA would provide $19,160 for City labor and overhead, virtually all of this 
would go to fund interns. Interns do not "earn" indirect costs for the City. Professional staff salary/fringe 
benefits and indirect costs will be provided to fulfill the required local match. 

c. If no, why are indirect costs not included? 

[ ] Not allowed by granting agency [ ] To maximize use of grant funds on direct services 

[ ] Other (please explain): 

14. Any other significant grant requirements or comments: 

$560,000 in federal funding may be available to implement the plan, at FHWA's option. 
"Disability Access Checklist*** 

1 5. This Grant is intended for activities at (check all that apply): 

[ X] Existing Site(s) [ ] Existing Structure(s) [ X] Existing Program(s) or Service(s) 

[ ] Rehabilitated Site(s) [ ] Rehabilitated Structure(s) [ ] New Program(s) or Service(s) 

[ j New Site(s) [ ] New Structure(s) 

16. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and/or the Mayor's Office on Disability have reviewed the proposal 
and concluded that the project as proposed will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and 
all other Federal, State and local access laws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons with 
disabilities, or will require unreasonable hardship exceptions, as described in the comments section: 

Comments: The pedestrian safety plan will take into account ADA requirements and disability community 
needs. 



Departmental or Mayor's Office of Disability Reviewer: 

/ T\ (Name) 

Date Reviewed: l V W Q \ V f,.^ M. H«*a<^1 




26 



Department Approval: r^<d- M< H<*"**- J * £ 



(Name) 



Attachment: V 

*e<^-n</t D.vpcfcj^ £/+- pa £ 

~7™ij — ~ 



of 




27 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 3 - File 01-2221 

Department: 

Item: 

Purposes of Lease: 



Lessor: 

Lessee: 

Number of Sq. Ft. 

Amount Payable 
to Airport: 



Term of Lease: 



Airport Commission 

Resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a 
Lease with the United States Department of Agriculture 
for space in West Field Cargo Building 1. 

The proposed lease provides for the United States 
Department of Agriculture to occupy office space in the 
Airport's West Field Cargo Building I, located in the West 
Field Area of the Airport. 

City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through 
its Airport Commission 

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Approximately 6,600 



$130,350 per year based on a Market Value Amount 1 of 
$19.75 per square foot per year or $1.65 per square foot 
per month. Ms. Diane Artz of the Airport provides further 
details on the Market Value Amount in the Attachment, 
provided by the Airport. 

The proposed lease also provides for annual increases in 
the rent based on increases in the Consumer Price Index. 
In the sixth year of the proposed lease, the annual rental 
payments to the Airport will be adjusted upward to a new 
Market Value Amount as determined by a City 
reappraisal of the Cargo Building, and the subsequent 
annual increases in the rent will be made based on 
increases in the Consumer Price Index through the end of 
the lease. 

Five years and four months with one five year option to 
extend, at the discretion of the USDA 



1 Market Value Amount is the rent a third party would be willing to pay to lease the Facility, based 
on (a) the size, location and age of the Facility, (b) the quality of construction of this new Facility (c) 
services provided under this proposed lease, and (d) the rental being obtained for new leases of space 
at the Airport. 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

28 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Description: 



The Airport constructed the new West Field Cargo 
Building to provide cargo warehouse space. The West 
Field Cargo Building was constructed at a total cost of 
$19,000,000, which will be reimbursed to the Airport 
through the tenants' annual rental payments to the 
Airport. According to Ms. Artz, the USDA presently rents 
office space outside of the Airport because there has not 
been sufficient office space within the Airport to meet the 
needs of all agencies desiring space. The West Field 
Cargo Building replaces the former "Airborne Building" 
that was damaged in the Loma Prieta earthquake and 
was subsequently demolished in 1989. The new West 
Field Cargo Building, therefore, is not part of the 
Airport's Master Plan Program and was primarily funded 
by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 
monies. 



The current tenants of the West Field Cargo Building, 
China Airlines and Asiana Airlines, took occupancy of 
their respective portions of the Cargo Building in April 
and May of 2001, respectively. China Airlines and Asiana 
Airlines occupy 67,070 square feet, or 100 percent of 
warehouse space in the West Field Cargo Building and 
11,464 square feet, or about 19.9 percent of 57,606 in total 
leaseable office space in the Cargo Building. Ms. Artz 
reports that 46,142 square feet of leaseable office space 
remain available in the Building. The proposed lease 
with the USDA represents 6,600 square feet of the 46,142 
square feet, resulting in 39,542 square feet remaining 
unrented. 



Comments: 



1. Ms. Artz reports that under the proposed lease a 
deposit is waived for the USDA because the Federal 
Government prohibits the USDA from making deposits 
for leases. 



2. On November 20, 2001, the Airport Commission 
adopted Resolution No. 01-0353 recommending the award 
of a lease without undergoing a competitive bidding 
process, to the proposed lessee, the USDA. Section 
2A.173 of the City Administrative Code states "The 
Airport Commission shall have power to negotiate and 
execute leases of airport lands and space in airport 
buildings, without necessity for competitive bidding, to 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
29 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

any person, firm, or corporation engaged in air 
transportation ... provided, that the original term of any 
such lease shall not exceed 50 years, nor shall any 
extension of such lease exceed a period of 50 years." 

3. According to Ms. Artz, the lease with the USDA was 
recommended without soliciting competitive bids because 
the Airport has the authority to make such awards 
pursuant to the Administrative Code as cited in Comment 
No. 2 above, and because the USDA is a Federal Agency 
that processes wildlife and food cargo shipments that 
enter the United States on aircraft. Ms. Artz advises that 
the USDA is an appropriate and compatible tenant for the 
West Field Cargo Building because the USDA would be in 
close proximity to the cargo facilities of the airlines. 

4. Ms. Artz reports that approximately 39,452 square 
feet of office space will remain in the West Field Cargo 
Building after the USDA takes occupancy. Ms. Artz 
further states that the Airport is currently in discussions 
with the United States Customs Service to lease 
approximately 16,600 square feet of office space. 

5. In the Attachment, the Airport Commission reports 
that market value for office space ranges from $1.50 to 
$2.50 per square foot per month. According to Mr. 
Franzella, the proposed lease is for $1.65, at the lower 
end of the range of $1.50 to $2.50 per square foot per 
month because the West Field Cargo Building I has office 
space in core and shell condition while the range for 
market value of $1.50 to $2.50 per square foot per month 
is for buildings that are ready for occupancy and provide 
full service. 

6. Mr. Franzella states that a survey of current market 
value for office space was conducted by Ms. Artz in 
response to the Budget Analyst. The survey included 
information from two commercial real estate firms, 
Coldwell Banker Commercial and BT Commercial Real 
Estate. In addition, Mr. Franzella reports, the Airport 
obtained market value information from the Raiser 
Organization, a major office space holder in the 
immediate area surrounding the airport. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 
30 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: The Budget Analyst considers approval of the proposed 

resolution to be a policy matter for the Board of 
Supervisors because the lease was awarded to the USDA 
without undergoing a competitive bidding process. As 
noted above, in accordance with the City Administrative 
Code, the Airport does have the authority to award such 
leases without competitive bids. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

31 



Attachment 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

INTER-DEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM 



TO: Harvey Rose DATE: December 20, 2001 

THROUGH: Bob Rhoades (fas' 

FROM: /S^^^ 

SUBJECT: Market Value - U.S. Department of Agriculture Lease 



Background 



A recent market survey of office space in the Airport market area indicated soft market conditions. The 
economic downturn of 2001 and the events of September 1 1 th have catalyzed a dramatic shift 
downward, as compared to market conditions in late 2000. The commercial brokerage community 
indicates that rental rates have fallen between 20-40% and that the vacancy rate in the County of San 
Mateo is hovering at twenty per cent (20%). 

The market survey, supported by comments from the commercial real estate brokers, suggest market 
value of Class A and B office space now range from $1.50-$2.50 per square foot per month (S18.00- 
S30.00 per square foot per year). These rates apply to buildings that are ready for occupancy and 
provide full service. 

Market Value Determination 

WFCB1 offers office space in core and shell condition. New tenants are responsible for designing and 
constructing all proprietary tenant improvements. The tenants also contract for janitorial service, 
utilities and other services separately. The cost of such services range from S4.00-S6.00 per square foot 

Based on these considerations, in today's market the Airport concluded that the fair market value for 
office space in West Field Cargo Building falls in the range of $1 8.00-S20.00 per square foot per year. 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Lease provides for a rental rate of SI 9.75 per square foot per year. 

Market Value vs. Capital Costs 

This market value exceeds the cost the Airport incurred to construct the building and subsequently 
manage it. Cumulatively, this cost includes debt service, land value, operating and maintenance costs, 
and an administrative cost. Regarding your request to break out the cost for the USDA component of 
the building, such cost data was not developed and is not available. 



32 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 . File 01-2281 



Department: 



Airport Commission 



Item: 



Location: 



Purpose of Lease 
and Operating 
Agreement: 



Lessor: 



Resolution approving a Lease and Operating Agreement 
between Smarte Carte, Inc. and the City and County of San 
Francisco, acting by and through the Airport Commission, 
for the operation of the Self-Service Luggage Cart Program 
at the San Francisco International Airport. 

San Francisco International Airport and the Airport's Rental 
Car Facility, located on Airport property at McDonnell Road. 



Concession space for the purpose of (1) renting self-service 
luggage carts to passengers, and, (2) operating the free cart 
services for the "Customs Program", "Rental Car Facility 
Program" and the "AirTrain 1 Failure Contingency Program" 
(see Description below for program descriptions). 

City and County of San Francisco by and through the Airport 
Commission 



Lessee: 



Smarte Carte, Inc. 



Term of Lease 
and Operating 
Agreement: 



Five years, commencing no earlier than February 1, 2002 
and no later than April 1, 2002, and terminating after five 
years from this commencement date in 2007. 



Right of Renewal: Five, one-year extensions, beginning in 2007. 



Annual Rent 
Payable by 
Smarte Carte 
to the Airport: 



The annual rent payable to the Airport from Smarte Carte, 
Inc. for the Self-Service Luggage Cart Rental Program at the 
Airport will be the greater of either the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee of $450,000, or 15 percent of gross revenues. The 



1 As part of the Airport's Master Plan Program, the Airport is constructing an on-Airport AirTrain 
system (the "AirTrain") to transport passengers throughout the Airport, to and from the Rental Car 
Facility and BART. The AirTrain is scheduled to be operational on August 10, 2002. 



33 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Utilities and 

Janitorial 

Services: 



Amount Payable 
by Airport to 
Smarte 
Carte, Inc.: 



Description of 
Proposed Lease 
and Operating 
Agreement: 



Minimum Annual Guarantee will be adjusted annually on 
the anniversary date of the subject agreement. The 
adjustment is based on a formula, which compares the 
percentage increase in "U.S. City Average - Transportation 
Services" Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the total number 
of airline passengers on the anniversary date to the "U.S. 
City Average - Transportation Services" CPI and the total 
number of airline passengers at the commencement of the 
subject agreement. The Minimum Annual Guarantee can 
only increase. 



The Lessee will pay for the costs of all utilities and janitorial 
services. According to Ms. Patricia Maitland of the Airport, 
janitorial services are not broken out as a line item in the 
lessor's budget because their employees perform this function 
as a part of their regular duties. 



The Airport would be responsible for payment to Smarte 
Carte, Inc. the gross total "not to exceed" amount of 
$12,886,000 for operating the free cart services in the 
"Customs Program", "Rental Car Facility Program" and the 
"AirTrain Failure Contingency Program", over the five-year 
term of the subject agreement or an average gross amount of 
$2,577,200 per year (see Comment No. 6). However, Smarte 
Carte, Inc. must pay the Airport a minimum total rent of 
$2,250,000 (Minimum Annual Guarantee of $450,000 for five 
years). Therefore, the net "not to exceed" amount payable to 
Smarte Carte is $10,636,000 ($12,866,000 less $2,250,000). 



The proposed Luggage Cart Lease and Operating Agreement 
(Agreement) comprises two major parts: (1) the operation of 
the Self-Service Luggage Cart Rental Program as a 
concession; and (2) the provision of luggage carts free of 
charge under the "Customs Program", the "Rental Car 
Facility Program", and the "AirTrain Failure Contingency 
Program" (the "Free Services") as described below. 



34 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Self-Service Luggage Cart Rental Program: 

Under the proposed Agreement, Smarte Carte, Inc. would (a) 
provide a fleet of no less than 3,500 luggage carts, equipped 
with brakes 2 available for rent at §2 per cart or such amount 
approved by the Airport Director, (b) install, maintain and 
repair, of such luggage carts, (c) install, maintain and repair 
of luggage cart vending units, which automatically dispense 
luggage carts to the public; (d) collect and relocate luggage 
carts as-needed. Smarte Carte, Inc. will pay the Airport 
concession rent equal to the greater of the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee amount of $450,000 or 15 percent of gross 
revenues (see Comment No. 1). 

Free Services: 

(1) Customs Program . Smarte Carte, Inc. must provide no 
less than 2,000 luggage carts in the Customs area of the 
International Terminal where arriving international 
passengers are subject to Federal inspection services. The 
luggage carts will continue to be available without a rental 
charge in the custom area as they are currently (see 
Comment No. 2). 

(2) Rental Car Facility Program . Smarte Carte, Inc. must 
provide no less than 500 luggage carts at the Rental Car 
Facility until AirTrain is operational and open to the public 
for transport to the Rental Car Facility. The luggage carts 
will continue to be available without a rental charge in these 
areas as they are currently (see Comment No. 3). 

(3) AirTrain Failure Contingency Plan . Smarte Carte, 
Inc. must provide no less than 500 luggage carts at the 
Rental Car Facility upon notification from the Airport that 
there is or may be an AirTrain failure, and buses must be 
used to transport passengers from the Airport Terminal to 
the Rental Car Facility. Smarte Carte, Inc. must provide, 
luggage carts in the Rental Car Facility free of charge until 
the AirTrain service resumes or as otherwise directed by 
Airport Director. 



2 The terms of the proposed Agreement require Smarte Carte to equip the luggage carts with brakes. 
Existing self-service luggage carts do not have brakes, according to Ms. Maitland. Ms. Maitland 
advises that Smarte Carte will either equip their existing fleet of luggage carts with brakes or 
manufacture new carts with brakes in order to meet the terms of the subject Agreement. 



35 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



As with the Self-Service Luggage Cart Rental Program, 
Smarte Carte, Inc. would also be responsible for the (a) 
installation, maintenance and repair of the luggage carts; (b) 
installation, maintenance and repair of the vending units; 
and, (c) collection and relocation of luggage carts as-needed 
for the free carts. 



Comments: 



Attachment I, provided by the Airport, is a list of luggage 
cart vending machine locations at the Airport. The total 
fleet of luggage carts that Smarte Carte, Inc. must supply is 
no less that 5,500 carts. 

1. According to Ms. Maitland, the Airport currently contracts 
with Smarte Carte, Inc. to provide (1) the operation of the 
Self-Service Luggage Cart Rental Program as a concession at 
the Airport; and (2) free cart service in the Customs area of 
the International Terminal and in the Rental Car Facility at 
a cost to the Airport. Ms. Maitland advises that the self- 
service luggage carts are currently rented for $2 per cart and 
the rental rate was last raised from $1.50 per cart to $2 per 
cart on March 1, 2000. 

In the attached memorandum from Ms. Maitland, 
Attachment II, Ms. Maitland states that the existing 
agreement with Smarte Carte, Inc. began in July of 1991 and 
expired in July of 2001. The Airport has continued to 
contract with Smarte Carte, Inc. on a month-to-month basis 
since under the same terms as the prior agreement. Under 
the existing agreement for the Self-Service Luggage Cart 
Rental Program, Smarte Carte, Inc. must pay the greater of 
either the Minimum Annual Guarantee of $225,000 or 16.7 
percent of gross revenues. A comparison of the existing 
agreement and the proposed agreement for the rental 
luggage carts is as follows: 



Minimum Annual Guarantee 


Existing Agreement 


Proposed Agreement 


5225,000 


$450,000 


Percent of Gross Revenues 


16.7% 


1 5.0°/ 


November 2000-October 2001 
Gross Rental Cart Revenues 


S 2,433,879 


S 2,433,879 


Comparison of Rent Payable to the 
Airport using the Nov. 00-Oct. 01 
Gross Rental Cart Revenue 


S 406,458 


S 365,082 



36 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Although the Minimum Annual Guarantee is $450,000 or 
$225,000 higher under the proposed Agreement, the percent 
of gross rental cart revenues is 1.7 percent less than the 
existing agreement (15 percent instead of 16.7 percent). Ms. 
Maitland advises that the 1.7 percent reduction in the 
percentage of gross revenue under the proposed Agreement is 
offset by the higher Minimum Annual Guarantee which 
places the risk of low revenues (i.e. low luggage cart rentals) 
on the Operator. Therefore, Ms. Maitland states that if 
luggage cart rentals are low, the Airport is guaranteed a 
higher Minimum Annual Payment than the Airport 
currently receives. However, the Budget Analyst notes that 
the revenue to the Airport would be $41,376 less under the 
proposed Agreement based on actual gross Smarte Carte, 
Inc. revenues over the 12 month period ending October 31, 
2001 ($406,458 less $365,082). 

2. Ms. Maitland advises in Attachment II that the free cart 
Customs Program has been paid for by the Airport since 
1994. According to Ms. Maitland, the Airport provides free 
carts to arriving international passengers for the following 
reasons: (1) the Airport is an international gateway; (2) 
international passengers arriving at the Airport possess a 
higher than average amount of luggage necessitating the use 
of a luggage cart; (3) arriving international passengers do not 
usually have the correct type and amount of currency to rent 
a cart; and, (4) U.S. Customs officials have repeatedly 
refused to permit a Currency exchange service inside the 
Customs area. 

According to Ms. Maitland, under the existing agreement, 
Smarte Carte, Inc. is paid $0.70 per cart each time a 
passenger uses a free cart in the Customs area. Ms. 
Maitland advises that there currently is no maximum 
amount payable to Smarte Carte, Inc. for the free carts in 
the Customs area. Under the proposed Agreement, Smarte 
Carte, Inc. will be paid a flat annual fee for providing free 
carts in the Customs area rather than a per cart per use fee 
as is currently done. The average annual fee for providing 
free carts in Customs is $2,474,200 ($12,371,000 over 5 
years). The cost of providing free luggage carts in the 
Customs Program increases over the life of the proposed 
Agreement, as shown in Attachment III, provided by the 
Airport. Also, as shown in Attachment III, the cost of the 



37 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Customs Program continues to increase over the five, one- 
year Agreement extension options. 



Customs Program 



Existing Agreement 



SO. 70 per cart per use. 
Nov 2000-Oct 2001 Net 
Actuals: $981,252 



Proposed Agreement 



Average Annual Flat fee: 
$2,474,200 



See Attachment III for the actual annual fee for each year of the proposed Agreement 



Ms. Maitland advises that moving to a flat annual fee for the 
free carts versus a per cart per use charge requires Smarte 
Carte, Inc. to bear the burden of increased operational costs 
over the life of the Agreement, thus, the Airport precludes 
future attempts to re-negotiate the fee amounts for the free 
carts in Customs by Smarte Carte, Inc. However, the Budget 
Analyst notes that the Airport will be paying $1,492,948 
more than is currently paid for the Customs Program. On 
page six of Attachment II, Ms. Maitland advises that the 
annual fee for providing free carts in the Customs Program 
includes Smarte Carte, Inc.'s cost of equipping the self- 
service luggage carts with brakes as well as the increased 
labor cost under the City's Minimum Compensation 
Ordinance 3 . 

3. Ms. Maitland reports that the Rental Car Facility 
Program was instituted upon the opening of the Rental Car 
Facility on McDonnell Road in January of 1999. Currently, 
passengers are bussed from the Airport terminals to the 
Rental Car Facility and vice versa. According to Ms. 
Maitland, the Airport received numerous complaints that 
passengers had to rent a cart twice, once at the terminals 
and again at the Rental Car Facility. The AirTrain will 
accommodate luggage carts, however, in the meantime, the 
Airport perceived providing luggage carts for free at the 
Rental Car Facility as a critical service for passengers going 
to and from the Rental Car Facility. The Airport currently 
pays a flat annual fee of $487,000, or $40,583 per month for 
the free luggage carts at the Rental Car Facility. Upon 
commencement of AirTrain, which is estimated to be August 
10, 2002, this service will cease and the Airport will no 
longer pay for free carts at the Rental Car Facility unless the 



3 Ms. Maitland advises that the Minimum Compensation Ordinance requires contractors with the 
City and County of San Francisco to pay minimum gross hourly compensation of $10.00 an hour 
beginning January 1, 2002, plus 2.5% annual increases for each of the next three years. 



38 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Air Train system fails (see Comment No. 5). A comparison of 
the existing agreement with the proposed Agreement for the 
provision of free carts under the Rental Car Facility Program 
is as follows: 



Rental Car Facility Program 


Existing Agreement 


Proposed Agreement 


5487,000 per year 


5480,000 per year* 


* The payment for this service terminates when Air Train is operational 



4. Ms. Maitland advises that currently the Airport is paying 
Smarte Carte, Inc. approximately $122,354 per month 4 for 
the free luggage carts in the Customs Area and at the Rental 
Car Facility. 

5. Because the AirTrain has not previously existed at the 
Airport, the AirTrain Failure Contingency Program is a new 
component of the Self-Service Luggage Cart Agreement. Ms. 
Maitland advises that after consulting the AirTrain Project 
Manager, she budgeted an expense of 14 days per year at 
$500 per day or $7,000 per year for the operation of the 
AirTrain Failure Contingency Plan. Therefore, the total 
estimated cost of the AirTrain Failure Contingency Plan over 
the five-year term is estimated to be $35,000. However, even 
if the AirTrain system failed 14 days per year, the costs of 
providing free luggage carts when the AirTrain fails is less 
than continuing to provide free luggage carts at the Rental 
Car Facility at an annual cost of $480,000. 

6. As noted above, the subject Agreement is for a five year 
period for a gross "not to exceed" amount of $12,866,000 for 
the free cart services in the "Customs Program", "Rental Car 
Facility Program" and the "AirTrain Failure Contingency 
Program". Ms. Maitland advises that the gross figure of 
$12,886,000 includes (a) the total Customs Program 
estimated cost of $12,371,000; (b) the total Rental Car 
Facility cost of $480,000; and, (c) the total estimated cost of 
the AirTrain Failure Contingency Plan over the five-year 
term is estimated to be $35,000. However, Smarte Carte, 
Inc. must pay the Airport a minimum of $2,250,000 in rent 
for the five-year term of the subject Agreement. Therefore, 
the net "not to exceed" amount for the five-year Agreement is 



4 Ms. Maitland advises that this monthly figure was derived by taking a 12-month average of 
luggage carts used in Customs, less the 16.7% of gross revenue payable as rent to the Airport or 
$81,771, plus the monthly Rental Car Facility fee of $40,583. 



39 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

$10,636,000. Ms. Maitland advises that if the subject 
Agreement is approved, any one-year contract extensions 
would be authorized by the Airport Commission, without 
subsequent Board of Supervisors approval. Attachment III, 
provided by the Airport, indicates the estimated costs and 
rent payments for subject Agreement over a ten-year period, 
including the five, one-year Agreement extensions. 

7. According to Ms. Maitland, the Airport Commission 
awarded the subject Agreement to Smarte Carte, Inc. based 
on a three-member panel's determination via written 
proposal and practical demonstration, that Smarte Carte, 
Inc. offered the best overall program. Ms. Maitland advises 
that proposals were received from the following three firms 
(1) Smarte Carte, Inc.; (2) Airport Carts, LLC; and (3) Top 
Cart, LLC. However, Ms. Maitland advises that Top Cart, 
LLC's proposal was rejected prior to evaluation for failure to 
meet the Minimum Qualification Requirements 5 : 

Attachment IV, provided by the Airport, is a summary of the 
panel members' evaluation of the written proposals and the 
practical demonstrations from Smarte Carte, Inc. and 
Airport Carts, LLC. 

8. Ms. Maitland advises that the costs of the subject 
Agreement were included in the Airport's FY 2001-2002 
budget. 

9. Approval of the proposed Agreement is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors because (a) the percentage rent 
payable to the Airport for the Self-Service Luggage Cart 
Rental Program decreases from 16.7 percent to 15 percent; 
(b) the Airport can exercise up to five, one-year extensions 
without subsequent Board of Supervisors approval; and, (c) 
the annual cost of providing free luggage carts under the 
Customs Program increases over the five-year period of the 
subject Agreement and continues to increase over the five, 
one-year Agreement extensions options. 



" Top Cart LLC proposed as Top Cart SFO, a limited liability company that was formed on July 20, 
2001. Pursuant to the RFP requirements, "Proposers will not be permitted to enter into the 
Agreement or perform the Services through a newly-formed entity, including a corporation or limited 
liability company (except that parties may joint venture provided that they satisfy the Minimum 
Qualification Requirements. The parties to the Agreement must be the same person or entity(ies) 
which proposes and satisfies the Minimum Qualification Requirements." 



40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for the 
Board of Supervisors because (a) the percentage rent payable 
to the Airport for the Self-Service Luggage Cart Rental 
Program decreases from 16.7 percent to 15 percent; (b) the 
Airport can exercise up to five, one -year extensions without 
subsequent Board of Supervisors approval; and, (c) the 
annual cost of providing free luggage carts under the 
Customs Program increases over the five-year period of the 
subject Agreement and continues to increase over the five, 
one-year Agreement extensions. 



41 



Attachment I 
Pape 1 of 3 



EXHIBIT A 
PREMISES 



SERIAL 
u 


CMU 
# 


TERMINAL LOCATION 


3622 C20 


Bridgeway b/w North & Old Central Terminal 




3613 N01 


Lower level, carousel #15, American Airlines 


4341 N02 


Lower level, b/w carousels #11 & #14, American Airlines 


4338 N03 


Lower level, b/w carousels #10 & #1 1 , American Airlines 


4334 N04 


Lower level, b/w carousels #5 & #6, United Airlines 


3610 N04A 


Lower level, b/w carousels #4 & #5, United Airlines 


3548 


N05 


Lower level, b/w carousels #3 & #4, United Airlines by 

others 


4311 N06 


Lower level, b/w carousels #3 & #4, United Airlines 


4308 N07 


Lower level, b/w carousels #3 & #4, United Airlines 


4304 


N08 


Lower level, b/w carousels #2 & #3, United Airlines 


4300 


N09 


Lower level, b/w carousels #1 & #2, United Airlines 


4301 


N010 


Lower level, carousel #1 behind telephones, United Airlines 


4309 N10 


Lower level, curbside, American Airlines 


4292 N11 


Lower level, curbside, door #6, United Airlines 


4291 N12 


Lower level, curbside, door #4, United Airlines 


3618 N13 


Lower level, curbside, door #2, United Airlines 


4307 N21 


Upper level, check-in counter, American Airlines 


4310 N22 


Upper level, check-in counter b/w restrooms, UA & American 


4297 N23 


Upper level, check-in counter United Airlines 


4296 N24 


Upper level, elevators, United check point 


4340 


N25 


Upper level, elevators, United check point 


4333 


N30 


Upper level, curbside, American Airlines 


3712 


N31 


Upper level, curbside, door #9, United Airlines by others 


4277 


N32 


Upper level, curbside, between door #6 & #7 


4313 


N33 


Upper level, curbside, door #3, United Airlines 


4316 


N41 


Boarding Area E, Gate 60, American Airlines 


4298 


N42 


Boarding Area E, Gate 62, American Airlines 


4204 


N43 


Boarding Area F, rotunda, near restrooms, United Airlines 


4337 


N44 


Boarding Area F, Gate 83, United Airlines 


4336 


N45 


Boarding Area F, Gate 89, United Airlines 


4274 


N70 


Upper level, Center Island, in front of American Airlines 


4275 


N71 Upper level. Center Island, in front of United Airlines 


4302 S01 


Lower level, baggage claim, in front of elevators, US Air 


4315 S02 


Lower level, baggage claim, Air Canada 


4216 S03 


Lower level, baggage claim, Southwest Airlines 


4332 S04 


Lower level, carousel #6, Continental Airlines 


4212 S05 


Lower level, carousel #7, Continental Airlines 


4211 S06 


Lower level, carousel #9. America West Airlines 


3711 S07 


Lower level, carousel #13, Alaska Airlines by others 


4312 S08 


Lower level, carousel #16, Delta Airlines 


4214 S09 


Lower level, carousel #17, Delta Airlines 


4314 S010 


Lower level, in front of elevator. Delta Airlines 


4083 S10 


Lower ievel, curbside. US Air 



Exhibit A - Pase I 



Luggage Can Program Lease and Overarms Aereement 



42 



Attachment I 
Page 2 ot 3 



4443 


S11 


Lower level, curbside, Continental Airlines 


3616 


S12 


Lower level, curbside, American Trans Air 


4289 


S13 


Lower level, curbside. Delta Airlines 


4303 


S31 


UDper level, curbside, US Air 


3713 


S32 


Upper level, curbside. Southwest Airlines by others 


4295 


S33 


Upper level, curbside, b/w America Trans Air & Continental 


3629 


S34 


Upper level, curbside, b/w TWA & America West Airlines 


4293 


S35 


Upper level, curbside, Alaska Airlines 


4213 


S36 


Upper level, curbside, Delta Airlines 


4294 


S40 


Boarding Area A, Gate 7, US Air 


4299 


S41 


Boarding Area A, entrance to Gates 8-16, US Air 


4317 


S42 


Boarding Area B, Gate 24, TWA 


4318 


S43 


Boarding Area B, entrance to Gates 32-36, TWA 


3609 


S44 


Boarding Area B, near Gate 23, TWA 


4290 


S70 


Upper level. Center Island, in front of Southwest Airlines 


4273 


S71 


Upper level, Center Island, in front of TWA 



4424 


A61 


Domestic Garage Section A Level 1 


4075 


A62 


Domestic Garage Section A Level 2 


4284 


A63 


Domestic Garage Section A Level 3 


4062 


B61 


Domestic Garage Section B Level 1 


4466 


B62 


Domestic Garage Section B Level 2 


4276 


B63 


Domestic Garage Section B Level 3 


5334 


C61 


Domestic Garage Section C Level 1 


4279 


C62 


Domestic Garage Section C Level 2 


4281 


C63 


Domestic Garage Section C Level 3 


4280 


C65 


Domestic Garage Section C Level 5 


4283 


D61 


Domestic Garage Section D Level 1 


4288 


D62 


Domestic Garage Section D Level 2 


4287 


D63 


Domestic Garage Section D Level 3 


4286 


D65 


Domestic Garage Section D Level 5 


4797 


E61 


Domestic Garage Section E Level 1 


5336 


E62 


Domestic Garage Section E Level 2 


4787 


E63 


Domestic Garage Section E Level 3 


4285 


F61 


Domestic Garage Section F Level 1 


4080 


F62 


Domestic Garage Section F Level 2 


4069 


F63 


Domestic Garage Section F Level 3 


4077 


F64 


Domestic Garage Section F Level 4 


4278 


F65 


Domestic Garage Section F Level 5 


5354 


AA-61 


A garage West end Level 1 


5353 


AA-62 


A garage West end Level 2 


5163 


AA-63 


A garage West end Level 3 


5350 


AA-64 


A garage West end Level 4 


5359 


AA-65 


A aaraae West end Level 5 


4726 


AA-66 


A garage West end Level 6 


5352 


AA-67 


A garage West end Level 7 


3620 


AA-68 


A garage West end Level 8 


5356 


AB-61 


A garage Middle Level 1 


5358 


AB-62 


A garage Middle Level 2 


5360 


AB-63 


A garage Middle Level 3 


5355 


AB-64 


A aaraae Middle Level 4 


5357 


AB-65 


A garage Middle Level 5 1 


5351 


I AB-66 


A garage Middle Level 6 1 



Exhibit A - Page 2 



Luggage Cart ProgTam Lease and Operating Agreemer,; 



4794 



5329 



AB-67 



AB-68 



Attachment 
Page 3 of ! 



A garage Middle Level 7 



A garage Middle Level 8 



4064 


GB-61 


G garage Level 1 


3619 


GB-62 


G garage Level 2 


4305 


GB-63 


G garage Level 3 


4067 


GB-64 


G garage Level 4 


3615 


GB-65 


G garage Level 5 


3611 


GB-66 


G garage Level 6 


5328 


GB-67 


G garage Level 7 


4282 


GB-68 


G garage Level 8 



4306 


rr-01 


Baggage Claim room A right side of the entrance 


3623 


IT-02 


Baggage Ciaim room A facing the entrance 


3617 


IT-03 


Baggage Claim room G right side of the entrance 


3625 


IT-04 


Baggage Claim room G facing the entrance 


5339 


IT- 10 


Baggage curbside, arrival level 


5335 


IT-11 


Baggage curbside, arrival level 


5330 


IT-12 


Baggage curbside, arrival level 


5331 


IT- 13 


Baggage curbside, arrival level 


5340 


IT- 14 


Baggage curbside, arrival level 


5338 


IT- 15 


Baggage curbside, arrival level 


5343 


IT-30 


Ticketing Curbside, departure level 


5332 


IT-31 


Ticketing Curbside, departure level 


5344 


IT-32 


Ticketing Curbside, departure level 


5345 


IT-33 


Ticketing Curbside, departure level 


5348 


IT-34 


Ticketing Curbside, departure level 


5349 


IT-35 


Ticketing Curbside, departure level 


5347 


IT-36 


Ticketing Curbside, departure level 


5342 


IT-37 


Ticketing Curbside, departure level 


5346 


IT-38 


Ticketing Island, departure level 


5341 


IT-39 


Ticketing Island, departure level 


5333 


IT-51 


Ticketing "G" side facing elevators 


3549 


IT-52 


Ticketing "G" side outside Amlock 


3710 


IT-70 


Courtyard A 


5337 


IT-71 


Courtyard G 



51020 


C11C 


Customs - connecting flight exit 


99221 


IT16A 


Customs M A" - Immigration Counters 


98221 


IT17G 


Customs "G" - Immigration Counters 



Exhibit A - Page 3 
Luggage Can ProgTam Lease and Operating Agreement ^ ^ 



Date: 
To: 
From: 
Re: 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 6 

January 3, 2002 

Maureen Singleton, Budget Analyst 

Patty Maitland, Senior Principal Property Manager 

Award of Luggage Cart Lease and Operating Agreement to Smarte Carte, 
Inc. 



This responds to your request for information regarding the San Francisco International 
Airport's Luggage Cart Lease and Operating Agreement. 

Current Self-Service Cart Concession Contract, Major Lease Terms Summary 



Premises: 

Term: 

Commencement: 

Expiration: 

Option: 

Use & Operation: 



Self-service luggage cart system, automatic dispensing "vending 
units" and carts available to the public throughout the North, 
South and International Terminal Building Complex, including 
connecting concourses, piers, and boarding areas. 

Five years 

July, 1991 

July, 2001 1 

Resolution 96-0132, adopted May 21, 1996, exercising option 

period. 

One five-year period exercisable at the sole discretion of the 
Commission. 

Uses Permitted : Exclusive rental of luggage carts by Operator 
throughout Terminal Building Complex, garage and terminal 
roadway sidewalks. At Commission's discretion, carts may be 
provided free of charge in Customs area. Operator installs, 
services and maintains cart in quantities and locations approved 
by Director. 

Operation : Operator to install and operate minimum 88 vending 
units Airport-wide, including Customs area together with 
minimum 2,200 carts. Operator leases vending units to Airport 
in accordance with §6.01 of the Agreement. 



1 The Airport Commission determined that it was inadvisable to commence a new luggage 
cart operating system, and one that included braking carts, in the midst of the peak traveling 
season and authorized a month-to-month hold-over of the existing agreement in anticipation 
of a Commencement Date for the new Agreement no later than April 1, 2002. 



45 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 6 



All vending unit counters to be set to zero at installation. Carts 
provided in Customs to be distributed through vending units. 

As required by Director, Operator to be present in Customs area 
during scheduled arrival time(s) of each and every International 
flight to assist passengers and make change. 

Luggage carts and vending units to be operational 24 hours 
daily, seven days per week. 



Rental Payment: Fee : 



Maintenance & 
Repairs: 

Resolution: 

Lease Modifications 



(a) Originally, the Operator paid Airport an annual consideration 
consisting of a MAG of $225,000 or 15% of gross revenue 
(see Modification #2 below). 

(b) Airport pays Operator $10. 00/month for each vending unit. 

(c) Airport pays Operator $0.70 per cart for each cart used with 
the Free Cart in Customs program. 

(d) Airport pays Operator annual flat fee of $487,000 to provide 
free carts at the Rental Car Facility. 

Operator agrees to maintain and repair any damages caused by 
its Operation. Operator responsible for maintaining all luggage 
carts and vending units in good operating condition. 

No. 91-0021 

Modification #1, Resolution No. 94-0054, May 1, 1994 — 
Redefined gross revenues for the purpose of funding the Free 
Cart in Customs Program. 

Modification #2, Resolution No. 96-0132, May 21, 1996 - 
Increased percentage of gross revenues to be paid as rent to the 
Airport from 15% to 16.7%. Exercised five-year option period. 

Modification #3, Resolution No. 99-01 16, April 20, 1999 - 
Established RAC Free Cart Program at a rate of $.70 per rental 
car transaction. 

Modification #4, Resolution No. 00-0295, August 15, 2000 - 
Reduced rate paid to Smarte Carte for RAC Free Cart Program 
to annual flat fee of $487,000 annually. 



46 



Attachment II 
Page 3 of 6 



Current Operations 

Historically, the Airport has paid the Operator for the Free Cart Programs. The Customs 
Program provides free carts to arriving international passengers for the following 
reasons: 1 .) SFO is an international gateway, 2.) international passengers arriving at 
SFO possess a higher than average amount of luggage necessitating the use of a luggage 
cart, 3.) arriving international passengers do not usually have the correct type and amount 
of currency to rent a cart, 4.) U.S. Customs officials have repeatedly refused to permit a 
currency exchange service inside the Customs area. 

Under the old agreement, the Airport paid the Operator $.70 per cart used in the Customs 
Program, which amount was included in the "Gross Revenue" calculation of the 
agreement on which the Operator paid rent. Because the U.S. Customs area is a secured 
and closed area, the carts were brought in through a guide-way that contained a counter 
embedded in the floor. The wheels of the carts passed over the counter and registered the 
number of carts brought into the Customs area. The only way a cart would exit the 
secured area was by passenger use. Each month, a representative of the Operator, and a 
member of the Airport's accounting staff, would jointly read the counter for that 
accounting period's billing. This method of counting the luggage carts via the guide-way 
presented significant operational issues for the Airport, the Customs officials, and the 
Operator. The Airport determined that requiring the successful Proposer to commit to 
annual fees would resolve this operational issue and also place the burden of increased 
operational costs over the life of the Agreement on the Proposer, thus, precluding any 
future attempts by the Operator to renegotiate the fee amounts. 

The RAC Program was instituted upon the opening of the Rental Car Facility on 
McDonnell Road. Passengers are bussed from the terminals to the RAC and vice versa. 
The Airport received numerous complaints that passengers had to rent a cart twice, once 
at the terminals and again at the RAC, when using the rental car buses. Unlike the buses, 
the AirTrain will accommodate luggage carts; in the meantime, the Airport perceived this 
as a critical service for passengers going to and from the RAC. Upon commencement of 
AirTrain, this service will cease. 2 

The RAC Program was initially tied to the number of car rental transactions per month. 
However, after an audit of the usage showed the Airport was overpaying for this service, 
the $.70 per rental car transaction fee was renegotiated to a flat annual fee of $487,000 
and the $138,000 in overpayments under the transaction methodology was credited back 
to the Airport. 



2 The Airport anticipates the Commencement of the proposed Agreement on April 1, 2002. 
Per the Agreement: "To the extent the RAC Program operates less than the first full Lease Year, then 
the Service Fee for the RAC Program for such Lease Year shall be prorated, based on a 360-day year." As 
the AirTrain will go on-line on August 10. 2002, the Airport will pay only 131 days of the RAC Program 
Fee ($174,667). 



47 



Attachment II 
Page A oT 5 



Finally, the AirTrain Failure Contingency Program is a contingency plan in the event 
the AirTrain during its regular operation fails, and the Airport must bus passengers to the 
RAC. The AirTrain Failure Contingency Program has not previously existed. 



Historical Financial Data 

The attached spreadsheets (which were included as source documents in the RFP) show 
the overall financial reporting for the luggage cart concession from 1996 through March 
2001. 



Proposed Lease and Operating Agreement 

The proposed Luggage Cart Lease and Operating Agreement (Agreement) comprises two 
major parts: (1) the operation of the luggage cart rental program as a concession, making 
the Carts available for rent at S2 per cart for the traveling public, and paying to the 
Airport concession rent; and (2) the provision to the Airport, for a fee, the Customs 
Program, the RAC Program, and the AirTrain Failure Contingency Program (the 
"Services") as described below. Under the proposed Agreement, Smarte Carte, Inc. 
would provide (a) the operation of a fleet of not less than 5,500 luggage carts, equipped 
with brakes 3 , (b) the installation, maintenance, and repair, of the luggage carts, (c) the 
installation, maintenance, and repair of luggage cart vending units, which automatically 
dispense luggage carts to the public; (d) the operation of the Luggage Cart Program 
including the collection and relocation of luggage carts; and (e) the provision of the 
Services. Exhibit A of the Agreement is a list of current rental cart locations at the 
Airport Terminal Complex. 

SERVICES: 

(1) Customs Program . Smarte Carte, Inc. must provide no less than two 
thousand (2,000) luggage carts in the U.S. Customs area of the 
International Terminal. The luggage carts will continue to be available 
without a rental charge in the Customs area 

(2) RAC Program . Smarte Carte, Inc. must provide no less than five hundred 
(500) luggage carts at the Rental Car Facility until AirTrain is operational 
and open to the public for transport to the Rental Car Facility. The luggage 
carts will continue to be available without a rental charge in these areas 

(3) AirTrain Failure Contingency Plan . Smarte Carte, Inc. must provide no 
less than five hundred (500) luggage carts at the Rental Car Facility upon 



3 The terms of the proposed Agreement require Smarte Carte to equip the luggage carts with 
brakes. Existing self-service luggage carts do not have brakes. Smarte Carte will either 
equip their existing fleet of luggage carts with breaks or manufacture new carts with brakes 
in order to meet the terms of the Agreement. 



48 



Attachment II 
Page 5 of 6 



notification from the Airport that there is or may be an AirTrain failure, 
and buses must be used to transport passengers from the Terminal 
Building Complex to the Rental Car Facility. Smarte Carte, Inc. must 
provide luggage carts in the Rental Car Facility free of charge until the 
AirTrain service resumes or as otherwise directed by Airport Director. 



Request for Proposal Process and Respondents 

The Airport Commission awarded the Agreement to Smarte Carte Inc., based on a three- 
member panel's determination via written proposal and practical demonstration that 
Smarte Carte offered the best overall program and is responsive and responsible. 
Proposals were received from the three firms listed below. However, Top Cart, LLC's 
proposal was rejected prior to evaluation for failure to meet the Minimum Qualification 
Requirements. 4 

Smarte Carte, Inc. 

Airport Carts, LLC. 

Top Cart, LLC 

Attached is a summary of the panel members' evaluation of the written proposals and the 
practical demonstrations. Please note that the scores of the panel members are a matter of 
public record, however, the evaluating panel members are anonymous (anonymity of 
panel members safeguards against undue influence being brought to bear on the 
evaluation process). 

The Request for Proposal (RFP) did not require a Proposer to submit its methodology as 
to how the financial component was derived, however, Smarte Carte has provided the 
Airport with additional information as set forth in the following section. As the RFP 
process is a competitive one, and the financial component is one of the areas evaluated, 
the Proposer bears the risk of the cost estimation. The Minimum Qualification 
Requirements ensure that a Proposer is sufficiently sophisticated to accurately project its 
future financial requirements. 



Delta Between the Existing and Proposed Agreement Amounts 

MAG and Percent of Gross Revenue Delta 

The function of a MAG is to ensure a certain rent threshold to the Airport; 
the percentage of gross revenue allows for the Airport to participate in periods of 



4 Top Cart LLC proposed as Top Cart SFO, a limited liability company that was formed on 
July 20, 2001. Pursuant to the RFP requirements, "Proposers will not be permitted to enter 
into the Agreement or perform the Services through a newly-formed entity, including a 
corporation or limited liability company (except that parties may joint venture provided that 
they satisfy the Minimum Qualification Requirements. The parties to the Agreement must 
be the same person or entity(ies) which proposes and satisfies the Minimum Qualification 
Requirements." 

49 



Attachment II 
Page 6 of 6 



higher rental activity. The MAG proposed by Smarte Carte is double the existing 
MAG. This high MAG places the risk of low revenues (i.e. low cart rentals) on 
the Operator and offsets the 1.7% reduction in the percentage of gross revenue. 



Program Services Fee Delta 

In general, Smarte Carte cites the following two items as being primary 
factors in determining its fee proposal: 

Smarte Carte has stated that because the proposed Agreement triggers the 
Minimum Compensation Ordinance (MCO) 5 , their labor costs are significantly 
increased over the term of the Agreement. Smarte Carte has given the Airport an 
unofficial estimate of approximately $1M for the first Lease Year in increased 
payroll costs. This estimate is based on a work force of between 100 and 120 cart 
associates, currently paid on average at $.75 over the federal minimum wage, 
working three 8-hour shifts. 

Additionally, Smarte Carte is required to provide carts with a braking 
mechanism in order to satisfy the specifications of the proposed Agreement. 
Either retro-fitting existing equipment, or manufacturing new carts to meet this 
specification represents a significant capital investment by the Operator not 
previously required by the old Agreement. 



Utilities and Janitorial Services 

In accordance with §8.2 Utility Costs of the Agreement, Smarte Carte shall pay the whole 
cost of the utility services required to perform under the Agreement. Although the 
Proposers were not required to provide their operating budget in their responses, I 
requested that Smarte Carte provide their utility cost projections, however, Smarte Carte 
has not finalized its budget. Additionally, janitorial services are not broken out as a line 
item of their budget as their employees perform this function as a part of their regular 
duties. The Operator will most likely be subcontracting their janitorial services out in 
order to meet the M/WBE goals required in the Agreement. 



X:\CDM\WRKFILES\PMAITLAN\Cart Rf P\brdot'supvrl stmemo.doc 



,:> MCO requires contractors with the City and County of San Francisco to pay minimum gross 
hourly compensation of $10.00 an hour beginning January 1, 2002, plus 2.5% annual 
increases for each of the next three years. 



50 



Wf.02'2005 09:23 



CONCESSION DEV i MOM" 



- Attachment' III 
Page 1 of 2 • 



a ■* 2 - 

p|n 

| so 



3 2 

9.- 

:? a 
3"? 



11.-1?. 

I fill 



5 f N 

- 2 3 



ib. ? r 






§* 



g-8 



3 B 

3'S 



2. O N) 

"7 3 — 
B 1 £ "s 



c 3. 

la. 



3?S &?■§ fcg 
2 o. ° q a S 5 

I » Si a 1 5 

iliilf 

sis |fi 

- I 8 "2,=. 
3 2, 



50 3 

if 

c - 

a 
S 



S- -''I? 



|| ••fill 



;1-:I5 

-'■_.-:'- ~S 



'JS > X 

;-3|s 

I Jig 
1 't£ 



i p| 

52 = 



j. s 



n 

e-o. 
S.<3 



5' s >-> 

fit 
I =1 



S S 

§1 

Cm m^ 

c 
B 



1 



a 3 a 

E. E: o 






B ~ P 



:?§ s- c 



S* 3> *» S H *• 



O /TOW 

§" <X E os 

= 3" = = 

5 f!-s 
i ? 



n 



?5* 



Sr 



=• H v- 

o < . 

1 - 1 

= i.J 5 

& — 2 

eg- 



S-s 



2 So 

1 5 



a 1 



W 

o 



? 

Z> 

c B 
o 2 

*£ 

E 

**• 

o 

o 

OS 



51 



'AN. 05 '2032 09:34 



CONCESSION DEV H HGMT 



— 3^-2 2 ^ c 

e ■§ 2 — 2 2 » 

BS c- f ' — — — 

_ | | H M -a 

8 ,1'c 5 2 



p tr o 

= B 3 

f JO - 

i 3 



2 2. 



f 8 S 

=> = 2 



fi 



Ha 

ffi 



5 I 



> d > >o 

g 1 §' c' ? £■ 

Jo I 5| 
S - 5 yT 



2-115. 



= 2. 



jg ■ c -o g > 

2 bl n 3 a 5 

5 - 5' 5 - ' a 

<g > Sa-S i 

a i * 5 =■ 

-> g B » 5l 

s I S 2, 
= ? 
8 2, 



13 
"1 

3 



"1? 



I 



2 3 
I I 

Q 
| 
o 
Q 



5 ^ SC 
< < - 

3 'S •» 


< ? 








c = 


?I1 


"H 


r» 2 ^ 




X P 


1 


I s 




o 






5 = 


C 


a. =. 


3 



O. TT VI 

a o ^ 

:= c vi 



&. T v» 



3 =f *o 
I 



5 9 
= 3 

i 






Attachment III 
Page 2 of 2 



£ 3 



c :? (J 






s §■ 



5 3 = 

s g § 



3 sr 

G. = 

Q. 5. 



i 3 



5 2 8 

5 6 "-J 



F8. 



3 f. f 

c o « 
Q. E o 



■ a. 
5-5 



— ■ v/< 

IS 

fro. 
2.^ 



c o OS 

=- = 2 
o. 3' § 

o a 



Q S "oo 

= |g 

S n 

i | 

II 






g i o= 
•?3 K 

I?! 



||!3 

I 3 1 
5. S "<=> 

a. 5' 3 



sr-s 



3 S 3/-5 

= "<= H q 
3" S 



il" 



a _ -j 
g 2 = 

i i! 



si 






52 



Attachment IV 
Page 1 of 3 



s 

s 

3 
C/J 



u 

WD 

« 
WD 
WD 
= 





4J 
BC 

U 

> 

< 


ta 

< 


in 

oo 




rn 
CN 




o 




00 
CN 




00 

oo 




a 

M 

2 
u 

> 

< 


€ 
ca 
U 
a 

■e 

CB 

E 

CO 


oo 
CN 




rn 




CO 




o 

CN 




00 




m 

GO 

c 

C3 

Ph 


ca 

2 ^ 
& 

< 


in 

CN 




o 
cn 




CN 




o 
en 




in 

en 
oo 




X 

> 

"u 
C 
ca 

Ph 


■e 
u 

I 

&0 


IT) 
CN 




o 

CN 




>0 




in 

CN 




«n 

iri 

oo 




CO 
CM 

0) 

E3 


w 

t: j 

& 

'-< 


t- 




r- 




r- 




o 
en 




vo 


4) 

O 

u 

00 

e 

H 

c 

6 s 


CO 

cn 

c 

a 
PL, 


u 

CO 

u 

u 

e 

a 

E 

CO 


CN 




00 




t- 




o 

CN 




CN 

00 


"33 
c 

H 

SL 


■c 

a 

t: j 

2 - 1 
& 

< 


f- 




o 




- 




CN 




CN 


e 

CO 

<! 

Gfl 


a. 


&-, 

SE 
H 

Ear 


2 


u 

u 
(3 

u 

u 

t. 

(0 

£ 

CO 


CN 




o 

CN 




VO 




r> 










C/3 

2 o 

CT3 ' ' 

U C 

Da w 

O CL, 




Experience & 
Assigned 
Staff (20 pts) 




.9- a 




Service Fee 
& Base Rent 
(30 pts) 




iJ o „ 

> 2 o 

> CL 8- 



■2 

ti J 

2 -> 
S* 

< 




u 

t3 

ca 
U 
u 

•e 
E 

CO 






























80% of Score 
(Average 
Score x .8) 



53 



Attachment IV 
Page 2 of 3 



a z 
> 

Ed 
H 
Z 

Z 



H 
< 

H 
Z 
Ed 

Ed 



s 3 

u 

> 
< 


U 

Sri 

ll 

U 






21.7 

7.7 
6.3 
7.7 




r- 




ell 

> 
< 


CO £ 

1" 


rn 

C\ 




t~*. m r*-> m 
CN co Cs C\ 








> 

m 

"3 

B 
rz 
PL, 


e- 
< 







^j I- CO cv 






CN 

r- 


> 

to 

c 




c 

CO 

O 
u 

£ 

CO 

E 

CO 







£ - 2 2 




10 


C\ 


K 

CO 

Oh 


CO 

C J 

E- 
< 


1/1 




J^J CO ^ CO 




O 
in 


^0 


Oh 

~ 

13 

a 


u 

c 

co 

U 

u 

e 

I 
00 







g) ^22 




O 
O 


CN 


2 
P 

B 

CO 

a. 


f 

CO 

2 J 

e- 
< 


CO 




S CO \o ^0 








s 

a. 


u 



e 

CO 

E 

00 


00 




£} Ov CO CO 




U-1 


CO 
CO 






B 
ed 

5, 



C 
<L> 

CO 

£| 
2 © 

O c 




m 0. O. c 
B 000 

.2 C ~ C 
"5 2 « g 

2 /-^ 3 s u. 

°^- S s 

& O a. & 
'> 73 

U 

s H 




B. 



B 



0. 
Er 


'? 

B 
> 

u — 

CO C3 

2 
a- e- 



CO 

S -J 
B- 

< 


M 

vi 


u 

CO 



1 
CO 


06 




























20% of Score 
(Average 
Score x .2) 



■c J 
g -J 



tin ° 

ca — o 

o 5 M 



54 



Attachment IV 
i^age j of 3 



c 

a 


O 


4) 

oa 
U 

■e 
£ 

00 


o 




























8 

s 

'J-,\ 



U 

u 


IT) 
IT) 


15.2 


o 




o 


o 

3 
U 

o 

ca 

s 

oo 




18.6 


o 




in 

00 












































































80% of Written 

Proposal Average 

Score 


20% of 

Presentation/Interview 

Averaue Score 


5 
ca 

c o? 

% ""' 

at, w 

U 

oi 

= 




GRAND 
TOTAL 



w 

o 
o 
o 

pq 



a. 

W 
H 
ce 

c 
— 
C 

> 



55 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 01-2232 



Departments: 



Item: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

- Hetch Hetchy Water & Power 
Public Health Department (DPH) 
Recreation and Parks Department (RPD) 

Resolution authorizing the General Manager of the San 
Francisco Public Utilities Commission to accept and 
expend a grant from the California Energy Commission in 
the amount of $265,000 to defray the costs of lighting and 
heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system 
retrofit projects at facilities owned and operated by the 
City within the Department of Public Health and the 
Recreation and Park Department; and, waiving the 
inclusion of indirect costs. 



Grant Amount: 
Grant Period: 

Source of Funds: 
Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 

Description: 



$265,000 

December 10, 2001 - June 1, 2002 (approximately six 
months) (See Comment No. 1) 

California Energy Commission 

$66,250 (See Comment No. 2) 

The PUC proposes to waive the inclusion of indirect costs 
to maximize the use of such funds for the subject projects. 

Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize the 
PUC to accept and expend a grant in the amount of 
$265,000 from the California Energy Commission to 
defray the costs of lighting and HVAC retrofit projects at 
San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), Department of 
Public Health (DPH) facilities, and Recreation and Park 
Department (RPD) facilities. 

Attachment I, provided by the PUC, identifies the DPH 
and RPD facilities retrofit project sites and indicates 
which lighting and HVAC projects will be undertaken at 
each site, including SFGH. According to Mr. Fred Weiner 
of the PUC, the projects identified in Attachment I are 
part of the high-priority energy conservation projects 
approved in Hetch Hetchy's FY 2001-2002 budget (see 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

56 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comment No. 2) and the subject grant funds in the 
amount of $265,000 would defray the costs of those 
SFGH, DPH facilities and RPD facilities lighting and 

HVAC retrofit projects. 

Mr. Weiner advises that the lighting retrofit projects 
include: (1) installing more energy efficient lamps and 
exit signs, (2) adding reflectors to certain lighting fixtures 
to improve lighting and (3) replacing incandescent bulbs 
with compact fluorescent bulbs, which use approximately 
one-fourth the electricity. According to Mr. Weiner, the 
HVAC retrofit projects consist of HVAC system 
modifications and the installation of HVAC premium 
efficiency motors, which provide the power output only as- 
needed. According to Mr. Weiner, the lighting and HVAC 
retrofit projects at SFGH, DPH facilities and RPD 
facilities would conserve energy and would result a 
reduction of utility costs for the two departments. 

According to Mr. Weiner, the PUC will contract out for (a) 
the installation of lighting at SFGH, (b) a majority of the 
installation of lighting and HVAC modifications for the 
DPH facilities retrofit projects, and (c) all the design and 
some of the installation of the lighting and HVAC 
premium efficiency motors, and ventilation system 
modifications for the RPD facilities retrofit projects, (see 
Comment No. 3). Mr. Weiner advises that two 5602, PUC 
Project Managers will spend a total of 1,440 hours (720 
hours each), managing the subject retrofit projects. The 
FTE count for 1,440 hours is equivalent to 0.692 FTEs for 
the two, 5602 PUC Project Managers. Those PUC Project 
Managers are full-time existing positions and will spend 
their remaining time managing other energy efficiency 
projects coordinated by the PUC. 

The total cost for the SFGH, DPH facilities and RPD 
facilities retrofit projects is $2,195,237, which would be 
funded from the $265,000 subject grant and $1,930,237 
from the Mayor's Energy Conservation Account (see 
Comment No. 2). 

Budget: The summary budget for the proposed lighting and HVAC 

retrofit projects is as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

57 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



PUC Personnel 

0.69 FTE 5602, Project Managers 

(1,440 total hours @ $33/hour) $47,520 

Mandatory Fringe Benefits (25% of salaries) 11,880 

Subtotal $59,400 

DPH Retrofit Projects 

San Francisco General Hospital $1,098,886 

DPH Facilities 

(construction, installation and equipment) 742,003 

Brown, Vence & Associates 

(as-needed Engineering design 164 hours @ $117/hour) 19,188 

Subtotal SFGH/DPH $1,860,077 

RPD Retrofit Projects 
RPD Facilities 

(construction, installation and equipment) $224,332 

Newcomb Anderson Associates 
(Engineering design & construction management 

164 hours @$132/hour) 21,648 

Subtotal RPD $245,980 



Other Costs 

Total Direct Costs $2,165,537 

Indirect Costs $29,700 

Total $2,195,237 

Attachment II, provided by the PUC, provides the project 
budget details that support the summary budget above. 
Mr. Weiner advises that the project budgets are 
estimates. As noted above, the total project costs of 
$2,195,237 would be funded from the following sources: 
$265,000 from the subject grant and, $1,930,237 from the 
Mayor's Energy Conservation Account, which includes the 
required match amount of $66,250. Mr. Weiner advises 
that Brown, Vence and Associates will consult on the 
SFGH and DPH facilities retrofit projects and Newcomb 
Anderson and Associates will consult on the RPD retrofit 
projects. 

Comments: 1. Although the subject grant period began on December 

10, 2001, Mr. Weiner reports that the PUC has not yet 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
58 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



accepted or expended the subject grant monies. Therefore, 
the proposed resolution is not retroactive. Mr. Weiner 
advises that the subject grant is only now coming to the 
Board, nearly one month after the grant period began, 
because of administrative delays at the PUC. 

Mr. Weiner advises that the subject grant is divided into 
two payments, $155,520 for the SFGH retrofit project and 
$109,750 for the DPH and RPD facilities retrofit projects. 
Mr. Weiner further advises that in order to receive the 
entire grant amount of $265,000, the subject SFGH, DPH 
facilities and RPD facilities retrofit projects must be 
complete by June 1, 2002. According to Mr. Weiner, the 
SFGH retrofit project will be complete by June 1, 2002. 
However, Mr. Weiner estimates that only approximately 
10 percent of the DPH facilities and the RPD facilities 
retrofit projects would be complete by June 1, 2002. Mr. 
Weiner advises because the PUC will not complete the 
DPH facilities and the RPD facilities retrofit projects, the 
grantor may only reimburse the PUC 10 percent of the 
grant payment for those projects, or $10,975. Mr. Weiner 
further advises that the PUC is currently negotiating 
with the State to extend the grant period so that the PUC 
has time to complete the DPH and RPD facilities retrofit 
projects and therefore receive the entire grant amount of 
$265,000. According to Mr. Weiner, the funds for the 
DPH and RPD facilities retrofit projects were included in 
Hetch Hetchy's FY 2001-2002 budget, therefore, if the 
grant period is not extended and the PUC is not granted 
the entire amount of $109,750 for these projects, there are 
funds available in the budget to complete these energy 
efficiency projects. 

2. According to Mr. Wiener, in response to surging and 
uncertain prices of electricity and natural gas, the Mayor 
established the Mayor's Energy Conservation Account 
(MECA), within Hetch Hetchy's budget, to fund large 
energy efficiency projects for City-owned facilities. Mr. 
Weiner advises that the initial MECA funding was 
$15,000,000. The source of the required match of $66,250 
is MECA. Mr. Weiner advises that the subject retrofit 
projects were included in the Hetch Hetchy FY 2001-2002 
budget and acceptance of the subject grant monies in the 
amount of $265,000, would therefore make the same 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

59 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



amount of MECA funds available for use on other energy 
efficiency projects. 

3. Mr. Weiner advises that the PUC would contract out 
up to $1,900,000 for engineering design, construction 
management and construction for the SFGH, DPH 
facilities and RPD facilities retrofit projects. The 
remaining work for the DPH facilities retrofit projects 
would be performed by the Department of Public Works 
and the remaining work for the RPD facilities retrofit 
projects would be performed by RPD. Mr. Weiner further 
advises that as of the writing of this report, he is 
uncertain how much of the construction and installation 
work for the DPH facilities retrofit projects would be 
contracted out or done in-house by Department of Public 
Works staff. 

According to Mr. Weiner, of the up to $1,900,000 that the 
PUC would contract out, the PUC has already contracted 
with (a) Advanced Energy Solutions, which was selected 
on January 2, 2002 through a competitive bid process, to 
install the lighting at SFGH for $897,047; (b) Digital 
Energy, which was selected through a competitive bid 
process, to perform engineering design work for $80,000 
and the construction management at SFGH for $90,000; 
(c) Kuhn & Kuhn, which already has in place a broad 
energy efficiency consulting services contract with the 
City, to perform design work and construction 
management for energy efficiency projects at the DPH 
facilities for a total of $300,000, (d) Newcomb Anderson 
Associates, which has an existing contract with the PUC, 
to perform engineering design and supply construction 
management assistance for the RPD retrofit projects for 
$21,648; and (e) Brown, Vence and Associates, which has 
an existing contract with the PUC, for the SFGH and 
DPH retrofit projects for $19,188. Therefore, the total 
amount of services already bid are $1,407,883 and the 
remaining amount the PUC may bid for the subject 
retrofit projects is $492,117 ($1,900,000 less $1,407,883). 
According to Mr. Weiner, construction and construction 
management will be performed by RPD staff for the RPD 
lighting and HVAC retrofit projects. Mr. Weiner advises 
that the lighting equipment for the DPH and RPD retrofit 
projects will be purchased through Omega-Pacific, which 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

60 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2001 Finance Committee Meeting 



has an existing City contract. However, as of the writing 
of this report, Mr. Weiner is uncertain of the actual costs 
of the lighting equipment. Purchase of the premium 
efficiency motors and equipment necessary for 
modification of ventilation systems would be 
competitively bid. 

4. Attachment III is the PUC's Grant Application 
Information Form, which includes the Disability Access 
Checklist. The Grant Application Information Form 
incorrectly states that the source of the matching funds in 
the amount of $66,250 is the two City personnel and the 
two consultants. The form should state that the source of 
the matching funds is the Mayor's Energy Conservation 
Account. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

61 



Attachment I 



Task 1. San Francisco General Hospital Lighting Improvements 

1.3.1 Retrofit Fluorescent Fixtures 

1 .3.2 Retrofit Incandescent and Mercury Vapor Fixtures 

1.3.3 Retrofit Exit Signs 

1.3.4 Upgrade Reflectors 



Premium 
Lighting Ventilation Efficiency 

Fixture System Motors - 

Retrofits Modifications HVAC 



Task 2. Department Of Public Health Facilities 



DPH Central Office 

Administration-Mental Health 

CHN Headquarters 

Chinatown Public Health Center 

Silver Avenue Health Center 

Southeast Health Center 

Castro Mission Health Center 

Ocean Park Health Center 

Venereal Disease Control Center 

Potrero Hill Health Center 

Center for Special Problems 

Sunset District 5 Mental Health Center 

North Market Senior Service Center 

Redwood Center 

St. Mary's Day Clinic 

Maxine Hall Health Center 

Sunset District 5 Mental Health Center 



Task 3 Department of Recreation and Parks Facilities 



Chinese Recreation Center 

Corporation Yard 

County Fair Building/Hall of Flowers 

Sharon Arts Building 

Joseph Lee Recreation Center 

Lake Merced Sports Center 

Mission Community Center/Cultural Center 

Portola Recreation Center 

Randall Junior Museum 

Strybing Arboretum 

McLaren Lodge 

Kezar Pavilion 

Justin Herman Plaza 

Palace of Fine Arts 



Source: Public Utilities Commission 



62 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 2 



Budget 



PUC Personnel (for Project Management) 

0.692 FTE, 5602 Project Managers (1,440 @$33/hr) 
Mandatory fringe benefits (25% of salaries) 
SUBTOTAL 

DPH Retrofit Projects: Equipment, Supplies, Design, and Installation 

Task 1. San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) Lighting Improvements 

1.3.1 Retrofit Fluorescent Fixtures 

1.3.2 Retrofit Incandescent and Mercury Vapor Fixtures 

1.3.3 Retrofit Exit Signs 

1.3.4 Upgrade Reflectors 



Task 2. 



Consultant SFGH/DPH 



Task 3 



SUBTOTAL : SFGH Retrofit Projects 

Department Of Public Health Facilities 

DPH Central Office 

Administration-Mental Health 

CHN Headquarters 

Chinatown Public Health Center 

Silver Avenue Health Center 

Southeast Health Center 

Castro Mission Health Center 

Ocean Park Health Center 

Venereal Disease Control Center 

Potrero Hill Health Center 

Center for Special Problems 

Sunset District 5 Mental Health Center 

North Market Senior Service Center 

Redwood Center 

St. Mary's Day Clinic 

Maxine Hall Health Center 

SUBTOTAL : DPH Facilities Retrofit Projects 



Consultant: Brown, Vence & Associates (164 hours at $1 17/hr) 
SUBTOTAL : SFGH/DPH Facilities Retrofit Projects and Consultant 

Department of Recreation and Parks Facilities 



Chinese Recreation Center 

Corporation Yard* 

County Fair Building/Hall of Flowers 

Sharon Arts Building 

Joseph Lee Recreation Center 

Lake Merced Sports Center 

Mission Community Center/Cultural Center 

Portola Recreation Center 



Estimated 

$47,520 
$11 ,880 
$59,400 



$913,772 
$92,261 
$29,134 
$63,720 

$1,098,886 



$193,404 
$107,326 
$81,269 
$57,582 
$63,593 
$42,398 
$33,232 
$31,714 
$15,663 
$10,987 
$28,651 
$1,615 
$19,254 
$11,303 
$8,910 
$35,102 

$742,003 



$19,188 
S1, 860,077 



F:\ENERGY\20002\Task17\PeakReduction\Att2-0530.xls 



$8,046 
$34,138 
$22,015 

$5,548 

$5,199 
$19,510 
$42,035 

$5,760 

Page 1 of 2 
Source: Public Utilities Commission 



63 



Consultant RPD 



Randall Junior Museum 
Strybing Arboretum 
McLaren Lodge 
Kezar Pavilion 
Justin Herman Plaza 
Palace of Fine Arts 

SUBTOTAL: RPD Retrofit Projects 



Consultant: Newcomb Anderson Associates (164 hours at 5132/hr) 
SUBTOTAL: RPD Retrofit Projects and Consultant 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 

$20,113 
$1,079 
$9,976 
$2,869 

$44,774 
$3,270 

$224,332 



$21,648 
$245,980 



Non-Labor Expenses 



S80 



TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $2,165,537 



Overhead 



$29-700 
TOTAL $2,195,237 



F:\ENERGY\20002\Task17\PeakReduction\Att2-0530.xls 



Page 2 of 2 
Source: Public Utilities Commission 



64 



Attachment III 
Page 1 of 2 



TO: Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 

FROM: Fred Weiner, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 

DATE: November 16, 2001 

SUBJECT: Accept and Expend Resolution for Subject Grant 

GRANT TITLE: INN-00L-022 - SB5X Peak Load Reduction Program 



Attached please find the original and four copies of each of the following: 

g Proposed grant resolution; original signed by Department, Mayor, Controller 

X Grant information form, including disability checklist 

X Grant budget 

X Grant application 

X Grant award letter from funding agency 

Departmental representative to receive a copy of the adopted resolution: 

Name: Fred Weiner Phone: 554-3185 

Interoffice Mail Address: SFPUC, 1 155 Market St., 4 th Floor, San Francisco 

Certified Copy Required: Yes D No E 
File Number 



(Provided by Clerk of Board of Supervisors) 



Grant Information Form 

Purpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supervisors resolutions authorizing a 
Department to accept and expend grant funds. 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying resolution. 

1 . Grant title: INN-00L-022 - SB5X Peak Load Reduction Program 

2. Department: Hetch Hetchy Water & Power 

3. Contact person: Fred Weiner Telephone: (415)554-3185 

4. Grant approval status: 

EK1 Approved by funding agency [ ] Not yet approved 

5. Amount of grant funding approved or applied for: $265,000. 
6a. Matching funds required: $66,250. 

b. Source of matching funds: 2 City personnel and 2 consultants (salaries/wages) 
7. Grant source agency: California Energy Commission 



65 



Attachment II; 
Page 2 of 2 



8. Proposed grant project summary: At the San Francisco General Hospital and 
various facilities in the Department of Public Health and Recreation and Park 
Department, implement energy conservation measures that would result in peak 
demand savings and reduce base load demand. Measures include lighting 
improvements, ventilation system modifications, and installing premium 
efficiency motors. 

9. Grant project schedule: Start-date: December 10, 2001 End-date: June 1,2002 

10. Number of new positions created and funded: none. 

1 la. Amount budgeted for contractual services: $1,900,000. 

1 lb. Will contractual services be put out to bid? Yes. 

lie. Will these contract services help to further the goals of the department's 

MBE/WBE requirements? Yes. 
1 Id. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? One-time 
12a. Does the budget include indirect costs? [ ] Yes |X) No 

12b. Why are indirect costs not included? 

[ ] Not allowed by granting agency E>^ To maximize use of grant funds 

on direct services 



'* Disability Access Checklist ** 

14. This grant is intended for activities at (check all that apply): 

[>3 Existing sites [X Existing structures [ ] Rehabilitated sites 

[ ] Existing programs or services [ ] Rehabilitated structures 

[ ] New programs or services [ ] New sites [ ] New structures 

15. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and/or the Mayor's Office on Disability 
have reviewed the proposal and concluded that the project as proposed will be in 
compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and all other Federal, State, 
and local access laws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons 
with disabilities, or will require unreasonable hardship exceptions, as described 
in the comments section: 

Comments: None. 



Departmental or Mayor's Office of Disability 

Reviewer: P^j^^~ — ■ 

Date Reviewed: ///^/r/as 

Departmental Approval: 

(Name) (Title) 

(Signature) 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 6 -File 01-2264 



Departments: 



Item: 



Location: 

Seller: 

Size: 

Purchase Price: 

Source of Funds: 



Description: 



Recreation and Park Department (RPD) 
Department of Administrative Services, 
Division (RED) 



Real Estate 



Resolution approving and authorizing an agreement for 
the purchase of real property located on Alberta Street in 
Visitacion Valley, to retain as public open space for a 
purchase price of $240,000; adopting findings that the 
conveyance is exempt from Environmental Review and is 
consistent with the City's General Plan and Eight Priority 
Policies of City Planning Code Section 101.1; and 
authorizing the Director of Property to execute 
documents, make certain modifications and take certain 
actions in furtherance of this resolution. 

Assessor's Block No. 6188, Lot Nos. 25 and 26 

50 and 52 Alberta Street, adjacent to McLaren Park 

Pei-Kuei Lee Wu, Shen Mu Wu and Tony Tsei Cheng 
Wen, private property owners 

5,000 square feet 

$240,000, or $48.00 per square foot, plus an estimated 
$7,500 in closing costs, for an estimated total cost of 
acquisition of $247,500 (see Comment No. 2). 

Proceeds from the General Obligation Neighborhood 
Recreation and Park Facilities Improvement Bonds, 
Series 2000C, previously appropriated by the Board of 
Supervisors in the amount of $6,180,000 (File 00-0679). 
The Neighborhood Recreation and Park Facilities 
Improvement Bonds, which authorized $110,000,000 in 
General Obligation Bonds, were approved as Proposition 
A by the voters in March of 2000. 

Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize the 
purchase of two properties, Lots 25 and 26 in Block 6188, 
from Pei-Kuei Lee Wu, Shen Mu Wu and Tony Tsei Cheng 
Wen for $247,500 which includes the $240,000 purchase 
price of the two lots and an estimated $7,500 in closing 
costs. The lots are located at 50 and 52 Alberta Street. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

67 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



As shown in the attached map (Attachment I), provided 
by RPD, the subject properties are adjacent to McLaren 
Park in Visitacion Valley. The acquisition of the subject 
properties would effectively enlarge an existing Open 
Space, McLaren Park, area already owned by the City. 
McLaren Park is currently 317.975 acres, or 13,850,991 
square feet. Acquisition of the subject properties would be 
an increase of 5,000 square feet, or less than 0.0004 
percent. 

According to Mr. Bob McDonald of the RPD, McLaren 
Park's walking trail system and the access point to the 
walking trail from Alberta Street were included in the 
McLaren Park Master Plan, originally adopted by the 
Recreation and Park Commission in 1959. As shown in 
Attachment I, the McLaren Park walking trail currently 
crosses Lot 25. Thus, purchasing Lot 25 would secure 
continued travel along this portion of the park's walking 
trail. Mr. McDonald advises that Lot 26 currently 
contains a level access point from Alberta Street to the 
park's walking trail that has been used by nearby 
residents for many years. Mr. McDonald further advises 
that there is a hill at the end of Alberta Street that 
prevents easy access to the park through existing City- 
owned land. Thus, purchasing Lot 26 would secure 
continued level access to the park and its walking trail 
from Alberta Street. 

According to Mr. McDonald, acquisition of the subject 
properties was initially identified in August of 2001 when 
the current property owners, Pei-Kuei Lee Wu, Shen Mu 
Wu and Tony Tsei Cheng Wen, installed a fence around 
Lot 26 in preparation to construct a single-family 
residence. Mr. McDonald reports that concerned citizens 
alerted the RPD when this fence blocked the access point 
to the park and its walking trail from Alberta Street. Up 
until August of 2001, the RPD thought that the City 
owned Lots 25 and 26 as part of McLaren Park, according 
to Mr. McDonald. Mr. McDonald further reports that the 
RPD contacted the property owners in September of 2001 
and negotiated an Agreement of Purchase and Sale for 
both lots to ensure continued level access to the park and 
its walking trail from Alberta Street. The fence would be 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

68 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

removed from Lot 26 and level access to the park and its 
walking trail system from Alberta Street would be 
reinstated once the City purchases the properties from 
the current owners. 

Mr. McDonald advises that the closest access points to the 
walking trail from a public roadway are 0.25 miles to the 
northeast from Wilde Avenue and 0.5 miles to the 
southwest from Visitacion Avenue. 

The Department of City Planning reported by letter dated 
September 10, 2001 that the proposed acquisition is in 
conformity with the General Plan and is consistent with 
the Eight Priority Pohcies of Planning Code, Section 
101.1. These Eight Priority Policies are listed in 
Attachment II, provided by the RED. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Larry Ritter of the RED, the RED 

hired an independent appraiser to conduct an appraisal of 
the subject properties and concluded that the fair market 
value is $240,000, or approximately $48.00 per square 
foot. Thus, the proposed purchase price of $240,000 is 
equal to the estimated fair market value of the properties. 
The owners of the properties have agreed to the proposed 
price of sale and entered into an Agreement of Purchase 
and Sale. 

2. Under the terms of the Agreement of Purchase and 
Sale, the City would pay an estimated $7,500 in closing 
costs, bringing the total cost of acquisition of the subject 
property to $247,500. 

3. According to Mr. Ritter, no site assessment or 
remediation examination has been conducted on the 
subject properties. The properties have never been 
improved or developed, and thus are very unlikely to 
contain hazardous materials, according to Mr. Ritter. 

4. According to Ms. Lisa Wayne of the RPD, an estimated 
$200 in annual maintenance costs associated with the 
subject sites is currently provided for in the RPD's 
Natural Areas Program budget. Since the RPD thought 
that the City already owned these properties, the City has 
paid to maintain the lots for many years. Thus, no new 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Recommendation: 



maintenance costs would be associated with the purchase 
of the subject properties. 

5. According to Ms. Susana Tan of the Assessor's Office, 
the assessed valuation of Lot 25, or 50 Alberta Street, is 
$97,669. Ms. Tan reports that the assessed valuation of 
Lot 26, or 52 Alberta Street, is $97,664. Based on the 
Fiscal Year 2001-2002 tax rate of $1,124 per $100 of 
assessed valuation, the annual taxes to be paid to the City 
on Lot 25 would be approximately $1,097.79 and on Lot 
26 would be approximately $1,097.74, for a total of 
$2,195.53 in annual taxes. Once the City acquires the 
subject property, such property taxes would no longer be 
paid to the City. 

6. The proposed resolution would authorize the Director 
of Property to enter into any additions, amendments and 
make certain modifications to the Purchase Agreement 
that do not increase the purchase price of the subject 
properties and are necessary in order to complete the 
proposed purchase. According to Mr. Ritter, such actions 
include amending the Purchase Agreement to (1) change 
the date by which the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor 
are to approve the subject resolution to purchase Lots 25 
and 26 from December 28, 2001 to mid-January of 2002, 
and (2) change the date by which escrow would close from 
January 18, 2002 to early February of 2002. 

Approve the proposed resolution. 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Maxwell 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 
Ted Lakey 




- Harvey M. Rose 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

70 



rCv'-*' 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 9, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



Recommendation: 



maintenance costs would be associated with the purchase 
of the subject properties. 

5. According to Ms. Susana Tan of the Assessor's Office, 
the assessed valuation of Lot 25, or 50 Alberta Street, is 
$97,669. Ms. Tan reports that the assessed valuation of 
Lot 26, or 52 Alberta Street, is $97,664. Based on the 
Fiscal Year 2001-2002 tax rate of $1,124 per $100 of 
assessed valuation, the annual taxes to be paid to the City 
on Lot 25 would be approximately $1,097.79 and on Lot 
26 would be approximately $1,097.74, for a total of 
$2,195.53 in annual taxes. Once the City acquires the 
subject property, such property taxes would no longer be 
paid to the City. 

6. The proposed resolution would authorize the Director 
of Property to enter into any additions, amendments and 
make certain modifications to the Purchase Agreement 
that do not increase the purchase price of the subject 
properties and are necessary in order to complete the 
proposed purchase. According to Mr. Ritter, such actions 
include amending the Purchase Agreement to (1) change 
the date by which the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor 
are to approve the subject resolution to purchase Lots 25 
and 26 from December 28, 2001 to mid- January of 2002, 
and (2) change the date by which escrow would close from 
January 18, 2002 to early February of 2002. 

Approval of the proposed resolution is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors. 



Supervisor Leno 
Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Maxwell 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 
Ted Lakey 





Harvey M. Rose 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JAN - 8 ,..;; 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

70 



Attachment I 



a 

E 

o 
</> 




CM 
O 

CM 
CO 

.*: 
o 

.* _0 
CO CD 

I g 

ra a, 
t\ m 
2< 






■f *£ 

I s * 

ha 



isii 




Attachment II 



Eight Priority General PJan Policies 



Re: Case No. 2001.0760R 

Proposed acquisition of 50 - 52 Alberta Street , 
Lots 25 and 26 in Assessor's Block 6138 



The subject project is found to be consistent with the Eight Priority Policies of Planning Code 
Section 101.1 in that: 

1. The project would have no adverse effect on neighborhood serving retail uses or 
opportunities for employment in or ownership of such businesses. 

2. The project would have no adverse effect on the City's housing stock or on neighborhood 
character. Two undeveloped lots would be incorporated into the adjacent public park. 

3. The project would have no adverse effect on the City's supply of affordable housing. While 
it would remove two lots from developing housing, the effect would not be adverse. 

4. The project would not result in commuter traffic impeding Muni transit service or 
overburdening the streets or neighborhood parking. 

5. The project would not adversely affect the industrial or service sectors or future opportunities 
for resident employment or ownership in these sectors. 

6. The project would not adversely affect achieving the greatest possible preparedness against 
injury and loss of life in an earthquake. 

7. The project would have no effect on landmarks or historic buildings. 

8. The project would have no adverse effect on parks and open space or their access to 
sunlight and vistas. Acquisition of the property as proposed would result in a larger public 
open space that would also be more accessible to neighborhood residents by providing 
access and egress from existing City street rights-of-way. 






72 




1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 



City and County of San Francisco Cit y Hal1 

^Meeting Agenda 
^Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Sophie Maxwell 
Clerk: Gail Johnson 



Wednesday, January 23, 2002 1 0:00 AM City Hall, Room 263 

Regular Meeting 



25 



Note: Each item on the Consent or Regular agenda may include the following documents: 
' 1) Legislation 

"^- 2) Budget Analyst report 

3) Legislative Analyst report 

4) Department or Agency cover letter and/or report 

5) Public correspondence 

These items will be available for review at City Hall, Room 244, Reception Desk. 



Each member of the public will be allotted the same maximum number of minutes to speak as set by 
the Chair at the beginning of each item, excluding City representatives, except that public speakers 
using translation assistance will be allowed to testify for twice the amount of the public testimony 
time limit. If simultaneous translation services are used, speakers will be governed by the public 
testimony time limit applied to speakers not requesting translation assistance. 

DOCUMENTS DE 
AGENDA CHANGES 

JAN 2 2 2002 

REGULAR AGENDA SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRAFh 

012236 [Appropriation - District Attorney] 
Mayor 

Ordinance appropriating $275,237 from the General Fund Reserve to provide funding for the court 
ordered change of venue for the case of People of State of California v. Knoller, et al. for the District 
Attorney for fiscal year 2001-02. (Mayor) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

1 2/17/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 



City and County of San Francisco I Printed at 2:56 PM on 1/17/02 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Agenda 



Wednesday, January 23, 2002 



020001 [Amendment to Paratransit Broker Agreement] 
Supervisor Newsom 

Resolution approving Amendment No. 2 to Paratransit Broker Agreement, to improve the ramped taxi 
program by leasing 24 ramped minivans to the Broker to be subleased to taxicab companies 
participating in the Paratransit Program, with guaranteed lease payments in the form of paratransit 
trips provided at no cost to the City; and to make other amendments updating the Agreement. (Public 
Transportation Commission) 

12/21/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 



020052 [IHSS Contract Modification Approval - IHSS Consortium of San Francisco] 

Resolution approving the modification of the contract between the City and County of San Francisco 
and the IHSS Consortium of San Francisco for the provision of In-Home Supportive Services for the 
period from February 1, 2002 to June 30, 2004, in the amount of $18,458,757, for a total contract 
amount of $47,673,130. (Human Services Department) 

1/9/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 



012281 [Airport Concession Lease] 

Resolution approving a lease and operating agreement for operating the Self Service Luggage Cart 
Program, Between Smarte Carte, Inc., and the City and County of San Francisco, Acting by and 
through its Airport Commission. (Airport Commission) 

12/19/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

1/9/02, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Peter Nardoza, Deputy Director, San 

Francisco Airport; Lou Cesario, Director of Operations and Development, Smart Carte, Inc.; John Kennedy, Deputy City 

Attorney; Daniel Lynch, Business Representative, Teamsters Local 665. 

Continued to 1/23/02. 



012283 [2002 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds Issuance] 

Resolution approving the issuance of not to exceed $100,000,000 aggregate principal amount of San 
Francisco water revenue refunding bonds to be issued by the Public Utilities Commission of the City 
and County of San Francisco; affirming covenants contained in the indenture pursuant to which the 
water revenue refunding bonds are issued; and authorizing the taking of appropriate actions in 
connection therewith; and related matters. (Public Utilities Commission) 

12/19/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 



020046 [Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company dba AT&T Wireless Lease] 

Resolution authorizing and approving a lease of cellular transmitter space at the Fire Station 30 
(inactive) at 1300 4th Street to Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company dba AT&T Wireless. (Real 
Estate Department) 

1/9/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 2:57 PM on 1/17/02 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Agenda 



Wednesday, January 23, 2002 



7. 020047 [Sprint Spectrum Limited Partnership Transmitter Lease] 

Resolution authorizing and approving a lease of cellular transmitter space at the Mental Health 
Rehabilitation Facility at San Francisco General Hospital to Sprint Spectrum Limited Partnership. 
(Real Estate Department) 

1/9/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 



020048 [Metro PCS Transmitter Lease] 

Resolution authorizing and approving a lease of cellular transmitter space at the Fire Station 40 at 
2155 18th Avenue; Fire Station 6 at 135 Sanchez Street, and Fire Station 15 at 1000 Ocean Avenue, 
San Francisco to Metro PCS. (Real Estate Department) 

1/9/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 



020085 [Revenue Enhancement Working Group] 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Motion urging the Mayor, the Controller, the Treasurer and the City Attorney to form a Revenue 
Enhancement Working Group in conjunction with the Board of Supervisors to consider mechanisms 
to enhance collection of money owed City departments and to consider appropriate fee levels for 
Department services. 

1/14/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 



10. 020059 [Reserved Funds, Human Resources Department] 

Hearing to request release of reserved funds, Department of Human Resources (Fiscal Year 2001-02 
Budget), in the amount of $12,716,850 to fund the remaining salary and fringe benefits for the Special 
Assistant positions. (Human Resources Department) 

1/1 1/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the January 
30, 2002 meeting. 



ADJOURNMENT 



IMPORTANT INFORMATION 

NOTE: Persons unable to attend the meeting may submit to the City, by the time the proceeding 
begins, written comments regarding the agenda items above. These comments will be made a part of 
the official public record and shall be brought to the attention of the Board of Supervisors. Any 
written comments should be sent to Committee Clerk, Finance Committee, San Francisco Board of 
Supervisors, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102 by 5:00 
p.m. on the day prior to the hearing. Comments which cannot be delivered to the committee clerk by 
that time may be taken directly to the hearing at the location above. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 2:57 PM on 1/17/02 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Agenda 



Wednesday, January 23, 2002 



LEGISLATION UNDER THE 30-DAY RULE 



(Not to be considered at this meeting) 

Rule 5.42 provides that when an ordinance or resolution is introduced which would CREATE OR 
REVISE MAJOR CITY POLICY, the committee to which the legislation is assigned shall not consider 
the legislation until at least thirty days after the date of introduction. The provisions of this rule shall 
not apply to the routine operations of the departments of the City or when a legal time limit controls 
the hearing timing. In general, the rule shall not apply to hearings to consider subject matter when 
no legislation has been presented, nor shall the rule apply to resolutions which simply URGE action 
to be taken. 



There are no items now pending under the 30 day rule. 



( 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 2:57 PM on 1/17/02 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Agenda 



Wednesday, January 23, 2002 



Meeting Procedures 

The Board of Supervisors is the Legislative Body of the City and County of San Francisco. The Board has 

several standing Committees where ordinances and resolutions are the subject of hearings at which members of 

the public are urged to testify. The full Board does not hold a second public hearing on measures which have 

been heard in committee. 

Board procedures do not permit: 1) persons in the audience at a Committee meeting to vocally express support 

or opposition to statements by Supervisors or by other persons testifying; 2) ringing and use of cell phones, 

pagers, and similar sound-producing electronic devices; 3) signs to be brought into the meeting or displayed in 

the room; 4) standing in the meeting room. 

Citizens are encouraged to testify at Committee meetings and to write letters to the Clerk of a Committee or to 

its members, City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Agenda are available on the internet at www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs.bos.htm. 

THE AGENDA PACKET IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT CITY HALL, ROOM 244, RECEPTION DESK. 

Board meetings are televised on channel 26. For video tape copies and scheduling call (415) 557-4293. 

Requests for language translation at a meeting must be received no later than noon the Friday before the 

meeting. Contact Ohn Myint at (415) 554-7704. 

AVISO EN ESPANOL: La solicitud para un traductor en una reunion debe recibirse antes de mediodia de el 

viemes anterior a la reunion. Llame a Erasmo Vazquez (415) 554-4909. 



(415) 554-7701 



Disability Access 

Both the Committee Room (Room 263) and the Legislative Chamber are wheelchair accessible. The closest 

accessible BART Station is Civic Center, three blocks from City Hall. Accessible MUNI lines serving this 

location are: #47 Van Ness, and the #71 Haight/Noriega and the F Line to Market and Van Ness and the Metro 

stations at Van Ness and Market and at Civic Center. For more information about MUNI accessible services, 

call 923-6142. 

There is accessible parking in the vicinity of City Hall at Civic Center Plaza and adjacent to Davies Hall and the 

War Memorial Complex. 

The following services are available when requested by 4:00 p.m. of the Friday before the Board meeting: 

For American Sign Language interpreters, use of a reader during a meeting, or sound enhancement system, 
contact Ohn Myint at (415) 554-7704. 

For a large print copy of agenda or minutes in alternative formats, contact Annette Lonich at (415) 554-7706. 
The Clerk of the Board's Office TTY number for speech-hearing impaired is (415) 554-5227. 
In order to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illness, multiple chemical sensitivity or 
related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various 
chemical based products. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 2:57 PM on 1/17/02 



Finance Committee Meeting Agenda Wednesday, January 23, 2002 

Know Your Rights Under the Sunshine Ordinance 

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, 
councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. The Sunshine 
Ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the 
people's review. For information on your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance (Chapter 67 of the San Francisco 
Administrative Code) or to report a violation of the ordinance, contact Donna Hall; by mail to Sunshine 
Ordinance Task Force, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 409, by phone at (415) 554-7724, by fax at (415) 
554-7854 or by email at Donna_Hall@ci.sf.ca.us 

Citizens may obtain a free copy of the Sunshine Ordinance by contacting Ms. Hall or by printing Chapter 67 of 
the San Francisco Administrative Code on the Internet, at http://www.ci.sf.ca.us/bdsupvrs/sunshine.htm 



City and County of San Francisco 6 Printed at 2:57 PM on 1/17/02 



FINANCE COMMITTEE 

S.F. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

CITY HALL. ROOM 244 

1 DR CARLTON GOODLETT PLACE 

SAN FRANCISCO. CA 94102-4689 

IMPORTANT HEARING NOTICE!!! 



.25 



/«* 



CITY AND COUNTY 




[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



January 17, 2002 



TO: -^/Finance Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 1 - File 01-2236 

Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



°OCUMENTS DEPT, 

JA N2 3 2O02 

f*£ FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC UBHAf £ 



District Attorney 



Ordinance appropriating $275,237 from the General Fund 
Reserve to provide funding to the District Attorney for the 
Court-ordered change of venue for the case of People of 
State of California v. Knoller, et al. 

$275,237 

General Fund Reserve 

The District Attorney is prosecuting Ms. Marjorie Knoller 
and Mr. Robert Noel for involuntary manslaughter and 
keeping vicious dogs and is also prosecuting Ms. Knoller 
for second-degree murder in the death of Ms. Diane 
Whipple. In September of 2001, the case of the People of 
the State of California v. Knoller, et al. was moved from 
San Francisco to Los Angeles by order of San Francisco 
Superior Court Judge James Warren. The change in 
venue came as a result of a defense motion to move the 
trial based in part on a defense-sponsored survey which 
found that 71 percent of potential jurors in San Francisco 
had already concluded that the defendants were either 
definitely guilty or probably guilty. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

The trial is scheduled to begin with jury selection on 
January 24, 2002 and is expected to last at least 10 
weeks. The change of venue requires that the District 
Attorney's Office prosecution team relocate to Los Angeles 
for the duration of the trial. The District Attorney is 
requesting a supplemental appropriation in the amount of 
$275,237 for living accommodations, transportation, office 
supplies and equipment, messenger services, temporary 
support staff and other trial related expenses for the trial 
in Los Angeles. 

Budget: Attachment I, provided by the District Attorney's Office, 

provides budget details in the amount of $228,587, or 
$46,650 less than the requested amount of $275,237. (See 
Comment No. 7) 

Comments: 1. Ms. Teresa Serata of the District Attorney's Office 

reports that the trial is expected to last at least 10 weeks, 
but because it is difficult to estimate the duration of the 
trial, it could last more or less than 10 weeks. According 
to Ms. Serata, it is unlikely that the trial will be less than 
10 weeks. However, Ms. Serata states that if the trial is 
shorter, the District Attorney's Office will return the 
unused portion of the subject requested funds to the 
General Fund Reserve. If the case continues beyond the 
estimated 10 weeks and if more funds are needed, Ms. 
Serata reports, the District Attorney's Office will request 
that additional funds be appropriated by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

2. Ms. Serata reports that the prosecution team working 
in Los Angeles for the trial will consist of three attorneys, 
two District Attorney investigators, one paralegal, two 
temporary investigators/paralegals and one legal 
secretary, for a total of 9 positions. Ms. Serata reports 
that the District Attorney's Office will hire the two 
temporary 8132 Assistant District Attorney 
Investigators/Paralegals at a total cost of $18,038 
(including $16,740 in temporary salaries and $1,298 for 
Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance) 
for the estimated 10 week duration of the trial as shown 
in the attached budget. Ms. Serata reports that the two 
temporary investigators are law students who are 
currently interning in the District Attorney's office. Ms. 
Serata further advises that the two law students are not 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



currently being paid a salary, but will be brought on as 
temporary 8132s for the trial. According to Ms. Serata, 
the prosecution team needs two investigators in Los 
Angeles because one will be coordinating witnesses 
throughout the trial and the second will be doing onsite 
research and other tasks for the attorneys. Upon 
conclusion of the trial, Ms. Serata states that the two 
temporary 8132 positions will be terminated. In addition, 
one legal secretary, residing in the Los Angeles area, will 
be retained at an estimated cost of $12,000 through a 
temporary services -firm- located in Los Angeles -for the 
duration of the trial. Further details are included in 
Attachment II, provided by the District Attorney's Office. 

3. Ms. Serata reports that the District Attorney's Office 
will be renting five one-bedroom apartment units in Los 
Angeles for the estimated 10 week duration of the trial at 
an estimated total cost of $31,700 as shown in the 
attached budget. 

According to Ms. Serata, the five one-bedroom apartment 
units will provide accommodations for the eight staff 
members who would relocate from San Francisco to work 
in Los Angeles. As shown in Attachment II, the District 
Attorney's Office has budgeted $31,700 for rent for the 
five apartment units, or $575 per week per apartment for 
ten weeks, or $2,875 per week for all five units at a total 
cost of $28,750. In addition, $2,500 has been budgeted for 
security deposits for the five apartment units ($500 per 
unit), which is refundable; $375 for set up fees to clean 
and prepare the five apartments for occupancy at $75 per 
unit, which is not refundable; and $75 for the application 
fee, which is not refundable, for a total estimated amount 
of $31,700. 

4. According to Ms. Serata, the $115,000 budgeted for 
Litigation Expenses includes trial exhibit preparation, 
such as printing and reproduction, the transportation and 
accommodations for trial and expert witnesses and other 
related trial costs. Ms. Serata states that the District 
Attorney's Office is unable to provide additional budget 
details to the Budget Analyst on Litigation Expenses 
because it would compromise the prosecution team's 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



strategy for the trial. According to Ms. Serata, the 
District Attorney's Office is prepared to provide any 
additional details to the Finance Committee in closed 
session if requested to do so by the Finance Committee. 

5. Ms. Serata reports that the District Attorney's Office 
will drive two City-owned automobiles to Los Angeles and 
rent two additional automobiles in Los Angeles for the 
duration of the trial at a rental cost of $250 per 
automobile per week, for a total of $5,000 for the two 
rented automobiles for ten weeks. The District Attorney's 
Office has budgeted a total of $2,000 for fuel, or $50 each 
for four automobiles for ten weeks. According to Ms. 
Serata, the reason the District Attorney's Office cannot 
relocate two additional City-owned automobiles to Los 
Angeles for a total of four, and instead is renting two 
automobiles, is because the District Attorney's Office does 
not have sufficient available automobiles to relocate all 
four automobiles to Los Angeles. Further, Ms. Serata 
reports that many of the District Attorney's automobiles 
are grant-funded and therefore cannot be taken to Los 
Angeles for this trial. In addition, Ms. Serata states that 
the District Attorney's Office has several Compressed 
Natural Gas automobiles, which are not appropriate for 
the long-distance drive to Los Angeles. 

6. Ms. Serata reports that although the defendants 
requested separate trials, Superior Court Judge James 
Warren has denied the defense motion and therefore the 
case will proceed as one trial. 

7. The proposed supplemental appropriation was 
originally budgeted for $275,237. Based on inquiries of 
the Budget Analyst, the District Attorney's Office has 
proposed a reduced budget in the amount of $228,587 or 
$46,650 less than the budget as previously submitted to 
the Board of Supervisors. This reduction of $46,650 
includes: (a) a $29,900 reduction in Rental Property, from 
$61,600 to $31,700; and (b) a $16,750 reduction in 
Equipment Rental, from $20,000 to $3,250. The $3,250 for 
Equipment Rental includes a copier and a fax as shown in 
Attachment II. The Budget Analyst therefore recommends 
amending the ordinance to reduce the amount 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

4 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

appropriated by $46,650 from $275,237 to $228,587. The 
District Attorney's Office concurs with this 
recommendation. 

8. Ms. Serata reports that the District Attorney's Office 
has already incurred and/or obligated a total of $39,275 of 
the requested amount of $228,587. The $39,275 already 
obligated includes: $31,700 for the rental of five 
apartment units; $2,300 for transportation and 
accommodations; $5,000 for litigation expenses; and $275 
for a fax machine. According to Ms. Serata, such 
expenditures and obligations were incurred prior to 
obtaining approval of the Board of Supervisors because it 
was necessary to make arrangements for accommodations 
and other preparations for the trial in order to be ready 
for jury selection beginning on January 24. The Budget 
Analyst considers the approval of such retroactive costs 
and obligations to be a policy decision for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to provide for 

retroactivity. 

2. Amend the proposed ordinance to reduce the requested 
supplemental appropriation by a total of $46,650 from 
$275,237 to $228,587 (line 16, page 1), by reducing the 
amount for Property Rent (line 15, page 2) by $29,900, 
from $61,600 to $31,700 and reducing the amount for 
Office Machine Rental (line 19, page 2) by $16,750, from 
$20,000 to $3,250, as discussed in Comment No. 7 above. 

3. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation in 
the amount of $189,312 ($228,587 less $39,275 in 
retroactive expenditures). 

4. Because of retroactivity, approval of $39,275 of this 
$228,587 request is a policy decision for the Board of 
Supervisors, as discussed in Comment No. 8 above. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

5 



Attachment I 



CHAR/SUBOBJECT 


DESCRIPTION OF APPROPRIATION 


AMOUNT 


REVISED BUDGET 


001/00501 


Temporary Salaries 

2-8132 Assistant District Attorney Investigators 

$1 ,674 bw x 5 payperiods x 2 FTE 


$16,740 


$16,740 


013/01401 


Social Security Tax (6.2%) 


$1,038 


$1,038 


013/01402 


Social Security-Medicare (1.45%) 


$243 


$243 


013/01701 


Unemployment Insurance (0.10%) 


$17 


$17 


021/02102 


Travel Costs Paid To Vendors 
Travel for prosecution team to and from Los Angeles 
S200 round trip airfare for 10 trips for 6 staff 
$200 round trip airfare for 9 trips for 2 staff 


$15,600 


$15,600 


021/02731 


Professional Services-Legal Services 

Funding for a temporary legal secretary in Los Angeles 

$30 per hour x 400 hours 


$12,000 


$12,000 


021/03011 


Rental Property 

Housing for prosecution team (8 members) for 10 weeks 


$61,600 


$31,700 


021/03121 


Rental Vehicles 

Rent 2 vehicles for 10 weeks in Los Angeles 


$5,000 


$5,000 


021/03131 


Equipment Rental 

Rental of office equipment for 1 weeks 


$20,000 


$3,250 


021/03241 


Telephone 

Installation and usage of 6 telephones for 10 week trial 


$9,000 


$9,000 


021/03411 


Subsistence 

Food allowance for 8 prosecution team members 

$30 per day for 10 weeks 


$12,000 


$12,000 


021/03521 


Messenger Services 


$500 


$500 


021/03542 


Court Reporter Transcripts Services 


$2,500 


$2,500 


021/05321 


Litigations Expenses 


$115,000 


$115,000 


040/04799 


Fuel 

Fuel for rental and investigator vehicles 
$50 per week x 1 weeks x 4 vehicles 


$2,000 


$2,000 


040/04951 


Office supplies 


$2,000 


$2,000 



TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUEST 



$275,237 



$228,587 



Source: San Francisco District Attorney's Office 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 2 



MEMORANDUM 

DATE: January 15, 2002 

TO: Sarah Graham 

Board of Supervisor's Budget Analyst Office 

FROM: Teresa Serata 

District Attorney's Office 

SUBJECT: Response to Questions Regarding Supplemental Appropriation 

Per our previous conversations, I am providing additional information pertaining to our 
supplemental appropriation request for S275,237 to cover the additional costs related to the 
People of the State of California v. Knoeller. et al. trial due to the change of venue. 

The trial is set to begin on January 24, 2002 starting with the selection of the jury. In order to 
prepared for court on Tuesday, our prosecution team is scheduled to relocate to Los Angeles on 
January 17, 2002. We expect the trial team to be in Los Angeles for 10 weeks. 

The defense has made a motion for separate trials for the two defendants. However, on Tuesday, 
January 15, 2002 the judge determined that the case would proceed as one trial. The 
supplemental appropriation request only reflects the additional costs related to one trial. 

The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office is graciously providing office space for our team. 
We are sending two members of the team to Los Angeles this week to do a site visit of the office 
space, court building, and related facilities, conduct a final needs assessment for the trial team, 
and handle any logistical issues. 

Temporary Salaries : We are planning to hire two temporary 8132-Assistant District Attorney 
Investigators/Paralegals to provide trial support to the team in Los Angeles. The individuals we 
plan to hire are unpaid interns who have been assisting the attorneys and are familiar with the 
case. We will fill the positions effective January 17, 2002, the day the team plans to relocate to 
Los Angeles, and will only need the temporary staff during the course of the trial, which we 
anticipate to be 10 weeks (SI, 674 bw x 5 payperiods x 2 FTE ). 

One 8132-Assistant District Attorney Investigators/Paralegal will be responsible for coordinating 
the transportation and accommodation arrangements for the witnesses. The other will be 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 
responsible for ensuring the office is functional during the trial, e.g., copying, filing, and 
maintaining documents and trial materials. 

Professional Services : We plan to obtain the services of a legal secretary through a temporary 
agency in Los Angeles. The legal secretary will provides services such transcribing (as needed), 
and word processing legal documents, e.g., jury instructions. 

Rental Property : We are renting 5 apartments for 8 staff. The cost for each unit is as follows: 
S5,750 rent for 10 weeks (52,300/month) 
500 security deposit (refundable) 
75 set up fee (non refundable) 
$6,325 per unit for 10 weeks 

5 units x $6,325 per unit = $3 1 ,625 for 1 weeks 

Plus lx application fee 75 (non refundable) 

TOTAL Rental Property $3 1 ,700 

To date, we issued a check for $1,300 as a deposit for the rental units. 

Rental Vehicles : We will rent two vehicles ($250/week x 10 weeks) and drive two city vehicles. 

Rental Equipment : We originally assumed that we would have to rent computers, printers, 
copiers, transcribers, and facsimile machines. The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office is 
setting up an office for us, which includes four computers and printers. It is more economical to 
buy a facsimile machine than to rent one. It costs $75-100/month to rent a facsimile machine and 
$250 to purchase. We decided to buy one instead of rent. 

Copier $3,000 for 10 weeks ($1,200 per month ) 
FAX 250 to purchase 

Total $3,250 for 10 weeks 

Litigation Expenses : The expenditures related to this line item are confidential. In general, these 
expenses are for transportation, accommodations, and per diem for witnesses, and trial exhibit 
preparation and reproduction. 

If you have additional questions, please contact me at 553-1895. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 2 - File 02-0001 

Department: 

Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Budget: 



Description: 



Municipal Transportation Agency (Muni) 

Resolution approving Amendment No. 2 to the City's 
Paratransit Broker Agreement between Muni and 
Intelitran. 



$860,523 

State of California Bridge Toll Funds 
Federal Transit Administration 



$172,105 

688.418 

$860,523 



The Attachment, provided by Muni, provides budget 
details for the project costs of $860,523, including the 
acquisition costs of $815,205 to purchase 24 ramped 
minivans at $33,966.86 each. The budget for procurement 
of the ramped minivans includes $7,986 for 
Administrative Expenses and $25,000 for Engineering 
Time Charges. According to Ms. Williams these charges, 
in the total amount of $32,986, are for Muni's project 
management costs for procuring the 24 new ramped 
minivans. 

Paratransit services are door-to-door taxi and van services 
provided to City residents who are elderly or disabled and 
are certified for such services based on the Americans 
with Disabilities Act (ADA) eligibility criteria and are 
unable to utilize regular Muni transit routes. Muni 
entered into the current Paratransit Broker Agreement 
with COMSIS Mobihty Services, Inc. dba Intelitran 
(Intelitran) on May 8, 2000. Muni selected Intelitran for a 
five-year Paratransit Broker Agreement in the amount of 
$66,333,277, through a competitive selection process. 
That agreement was previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors in February of 2000 (File No. 00-0045). 

The proposed resolution would amend the current 
Paratransit Broker Agreement through Amendment No. 2 
to provide for the Paratransit Broker to manage 24 new 
ramped minivans to be purchased by the City at a cost of 
$33,966.86 each, to replace the 28 ramped minivans 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

9 



Memo to Finance Committee 

Januarj 7 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

currently used in the Paratransit Program. A ramped 
minivan is a minivan equipped with a ramp that 
facilitates access for people with disabilities. As is the 
case under the current Paratransit Broker Agreement, 
the 24 replacement ramped minivans will be leased by 
Muni to the Paratransit Broker, Intelitran, over a three- 
year period. Intelitran would then sublease the ramped 
minivans over a three-year period to taxicab companies 
chosen through a request for proposal process. According 
to Ms. Annette Williams of Muni, the Paratransit Broker, 
Intelitran, conducts the RFP, with one representative of 
Muni, one representative of Intelitran and three members 
of the Paratransit Coordinating Council on the evaluation 
committee. 

The proposed Amendment No. 2 also authorizes Intelitran 
to pay taxicab companies for paratransit trips on a 
bimonthly basis instead of providing payments once a 
month to such companies. Amendment No. 2 also requires 
the taxicab companies to comply with the City's Minimum 
Compensation Ordinance and with the City's Health Care 
Accountability Ordinance. Ms. Williams states that these 
amendments to the Paratransit Broker Agreement are 
intended to streamline the billing and payment process 
for Intelitran and participating taxicab companies and to 
bring the Agreement into compliance with City 
ordinances. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Kate Toran of Muni, the subject 

Amendment to the Paratransit Broker Agreement 
provides for Intelitran to manage the 24 new ramped 
minivans to be purchased by the City because the 28 
ramped minivans currently used have reached the end of 
their useful life. Ms. Williams reports that the Taxicab 
Commission set the term of useful life for ramped 
minivans used in the Paratransit Program to be three 
years and that the term of useful life of the current 
ramped minivans would have expired on December 31, 
2001. However the Taxicab Commission granted a one- 
year extension allowing the use of the 28 ramped 
minivans until December 31, 2002. Ms. Williams further 
advises that the Paratransit Program originally procured 
30 ramped minivans in 1998, but two of the ramped 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



minivans were damaged in accidents in 2001 and are no 
longer used, leaving 28 ramped minivans currently used. 
According to Ms. Williams, Muni is only replacing 24 of 
the original 30 ramped minivans because there is only 
Federal and State funding available for only 24 ramped 
minivans. Ms. Williams states that taxicab companies 
and other individuals who are authorized by the City to 
operate taxicabs own additional ramped minivans and 
Muni does not anticipate any reduction in overall ramped 
taxi service as a result of the reduction of City-owned 
ramped minivans from the presently utilized 28 minivans 
to 24 minivans. 

2. Ms. Williams advises that the $860,523 in State and 
Federal funds for the 24 ramped minivans was included 
in Muni's FY 2001-2002 budget and was previously 
approved by the Board of Supervisors. 

3. Under the proposed Amendment No. 2, Muni would 
receive sublease payments from the taxicab companies of 
at least $625 per ramped minivan per month, for the term 
of the lease. Ms. Williams reports that the minimum 
monthly payment of $625 was calculated to be the 
average cost per month to a taxicab company to acquire a 
regular sedan taxicab. According to Ms. Williams, a 
regular sedan taxicab would cost approximately $22,500, 
or $625 per month over a three year (36 month) period. 
Based on lease payments of at least $625 per month, Ms. 
Williams reports that Muni will receive at least $540,000 
in sublease payments from the taxicab companies for the 
24 vehicles over the three year useful life of the ramped 
minivans. According to Ms. Williams, the taxicab 
companies participate in a competitive bidding process for 
the subleases for the ramped minivans and Muni could 
receive more than $625 per vehicle per month in sublease 
payments if the winning bids were for a higher amount. 
Ms. Williams further states that taxicab companies 
cannot bid less than $625 per vehicle per month. 

Ms. Williams reports that the sublease payments are 
designed to maximize the number of ramped minivan 
trips to be provided by the Paratransit Program and that 
the sublease payments will not fully reimburse the total 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



subject costs of $860,523, which would be financed from 
State and Federal funds. Ms. Williams reports that Muni 
will use the estimated $540,000 in lease revenues to fund 
operating costs of the Paratransit Program. Ms. Williams 
further advises that the revenue generated by the taxicab 
subleases has previously been included in Muni's annual 
budget for the Paratransit Program. 

4. Ms. Williams reports that Intelitran will retain a 
private firm at an estimated cost of $28,800 to serve as an 
independent inspection agency to inspect each ramped 
minivan approximately twice annually for the three year 
duration of useful life. According to Ms. Williams, the 
estimated $28,800 will be provided from Broker 
Administration costs included in the Paratransit 
Program. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

12 



Attachment 



Budget for Ramp Taxi Procurement 
Uses 



Cost per ramped minivan 
Number of ramped minivans 
Total cost for 24 ramped minivans 

State of California inspection services 

Administrative Expenses 
Engineering Time Charges 



$33,966.86 
24 



$815,205 

12,332 

7,986 
25,000 



TotaT 



$860,523 



Sources 



Federal Transit Administration funds 
State of California Bridge Toll funds 
ToFak'"""' 



$688,418 
$172,105 
$860,523 



Other costs associated with the ramp taxi procurement: 

Inspection of the vehicles, at least annually. The cost estimated at $28,800, 
and not to exceed $30,000, over the term of the lease, payable by Intelitran. 



13 



Source: Municipal Transportation Agency 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - Files 02-0052 



Department: Department of Human Services (DHS) 

Item: Resolution approving the modification of the contract 

between the City and the In-Home Supportive Services 
(IHSS) Consortium of San Francisco for the provision of In- 
Home Supportive Services for the period from February 1, 
2002 to June 30, 2004, increasing the existing contract 
amount of $29,214,373 by $18,458,757 to $47,673,130. 



Modified Contract 
Amount: 

Budget: 



Source of Funds: 



Not to exceed $47,673,130, an increase of $18,458,757 

Attachment I, provided by the Department of Human 
Services (DHS), is a 36-month budget for the total proposed 
$47,673,130 contract, from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 
2004, and separately identifying the $18,458,757 proposed 
increase to the existing contract amount of $29,214,373. 
Under the existing $29,214,373 contract with IHSS 
Consortium, the IHSS Consortium provides intensive 
supervision in-home supportive services. The existing three- 
year DHS contract with the IHSS Consortium in the amount 
of $29,214,373 was previously approved by the Board of 
Supervisors on July 23, 2001 (File 01-1092). The subject 
proposed increased amount of $18,458,757 would authorize 
an amended contract with the IHSS Consortium for the IHSS 
Consortium to also provide regular supervision in-home 
supportive services. 

A combination of General Fund monies (22 percent) and 
Federal funds (78 percent). The sources of funding for the 
$18,458,757 increase to the existing contract amount, as 
provided by DHS, are as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

14 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Term of Contract 
Modification: 

Description: 



General Fund monies included in DHS's 
FY 2001-2002 budget in the 
amount of $700,160 and projected for 
the FY 2002-2003 and 
FY 2003-2004 budgets in the 
amount of $1,680,383 each year 

Federal and State Medicaid Funds 
included in DHS's FY 2001-2002 
budget in the amount of $2,482,385 
anH pmjPPtpH for the FY 9,009.-9.003 



$4,060,926 (22.0%) 



and FY 2003-2004 budgets in the 
amount of $5,957,723 each year 
TOTAL 



14.397.831 (78.0%) 
$18,458,757 



29 months from February 1, 2002 through June 30, 2004 

In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) is an entitlement 
program which provides funding for low-income seniors and 
disabled persons to receive non-medical personal care and 
other household assistance in their homes from visiting 
workers. IHSS care can allow seniors and disabled persons 
to remain in their own homes and thereby avoid unnecessary 
and expensive hospitalization or institutionalization. 

IHSS services are provided by either independent providers 
or contracted providers. All IHSS services are funded by a 
combination of City General Fund monies and State and 
Federal Medicaid funds. According to Mr. David Curto of the 
DHS, since 1994 the contractual IHSS services have been 
divided into two separate contracts, one for intensive 
supervision services and one for regular supervision services. 
Mr. Curto advises that the difference between the two levels 
of service is that intensive supervision services include case 
management in addition to household chores and personal 
care services whereas the regular supervision services do not 
include case management. Mr. Curto explains that case 
management involves an assessment, referral and follow-up 
with persons receiving in-home supportive services to link 
them to additional supportive services which are not 
provided under these contracts. 

In July of 1998, the Board of Supervisors approved two 
contracts for IHSS services, one with Addus Healthcare, a 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



private for-profit provider, to provide regular supervision 
services and one with the IHSS Consortium 1 , a nonprofit 
agency, to provide intensive supervision services for the 35- 
month period from August 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001, with an 
option to renew for one additional year (Files 98-934 and 98- 
935). According to Mr. Curto, two separate Request for 
Proposals (RFPs) for (1) a new regular supervision IHSS 
contract and (2) a new intensive supervision IHSS contract 
were initially issued on February 14, 2001, prior to the 
expiration of the two contracts which expired on June 30, 
2001. 



On July 23, 2001, the Board of Supervisors approved the 
intensive supervision IHSS contract with the IHSS 
Consortium in the amount of $29,214,373 for the three-year 
period from July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2004 (File 01- 
1092). According to Mr. Curto, the IHSS Consortium was the 
only service provider to submit a proposal to DHS in 
response the RFP issued on February 14, 2001 for the 
intensive supervision IHSS contract. 

Mr. Curto reports that both the IHSS Consortium and Addus 
submitted proposals in response to the RFP also issued on 
February 14, 2001 for the regular supervision IHSS contract. 
Mr. Curto reports that the regular supervision contract was 
tentatively awarded to the IHSS Consortium on April 17, 
2001. However, Addus subsequently filed a formal protest to 
that RFP process. In a January 14, 2002 memorandum to the 
Budget Analyst (Attachment II), Mr. Curto explains that in 
response to this protest, DHS initiated negotiations between 
Addus and the IHSS Consortium to determine if those two 
contractors could share the regular supervision IHSS 
contract. As stated by Mr. Curto in Attachment II, IHSS 
Consortium and Addus were not able to reach an agreement 
to share this contract. As a result and in accordance with the 
request of the Finance Committee, DHS issued a new RFP 
for the regular supervision IHSS contract on October 24, 
2001. According to Mr. Curto, the regular supervision IHSS 



1 The IHSS Consortium is an association of nonprofit agencies which includes the Independent 
Living Resource Center, Self-Help for the Elderly, Mission Neighborhood Center, Kimochi, Inc., 
Bayview-Hunters Point Multipurpose Senior Services Center, Catholic Charities and Western 
Addition Senior Citizens Service Center. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



contract was publicized on the City's website and in the nine 
newspapers listed in Attachment III, provided by DHS. 

Of the four firms that submitted proposals to DHS to provide 
regular supervision services in response the DHS October 24, 
2001 RFP, namely IHSS Consortium, Addus, Nurse 
Providers and Maxim, IHSS Consortium received from the 
four panelists a total of 366 points. The next highest score 
was Addus which received 355 points as shown in 
Attachment IV, provided by DHS. As shown in Attachment 
V, provided by DHS. the hourly rates of IHSS Consortium^ 
were lower than the hourly rates of Addus in each of the 
fiscal years covered by the proposed modified contract. 

The proposal submitted by the IHSS Consortium to provide 
regular supervision services was originally in the amount of 
$18,883,418, or $424,661 more than the proposed contract 
modification of $18,458,757. This contract would be increased 
for the 29-month period from February 1, 2002 to June 30, 
2004 (a) by $18,458,757, or approximately 63.2 percent, from 
$29,214,373 to $47,673,130, and (b) by 906,250 hours of 
regular supervision services, or 66.6 percent, from 1,360,000 
hours to provide intensive supervision services to 2,266,250 
hours to provide both intensive supervision and regular 
supervision services. Furthermore, this contract modification 
which, as noted above, is $424,661 less than the originally 
proposed amount, reflects the results of further negotiations 
between DHS and the IHSS Consortium, such that under the 
proposed contract modification, both intensive and regular 
supervision services would be provided by IHSS Consortium 
at one composite hourly rate of $20.32 for the period of 
February 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002 instead of an hourly 
rate of $20.88 for intensive supervision services as currently 
provided by IHSS Consortium. 

Mr. Curto reports that the total number of hours under the 
proposed modified contract is 2,266,250 including 1,360,000 
hours to provide intensive supervision and 906,250 hours to 
provide regular supervision. The total number of hours times 
the new negotiated hourly rates for both intensive and 
regular supervision plus the amount already spent through 
December 31, 2002 at the old rate for only intensive 
supervision equals the new modified contract amount of 
$47,673,130, as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 





7/1/01 - 
1/31/02 


2/1/02 - 
6/30/02 


7/1/02 - 

6/31/03 

(FY 2002 - 

2003) 


7/1/03 - 

6/30/04 

(FY 2002 - 

2003) 


7/1/01 - 
6/30/04 


Approximate 
Average Rate 


$20,878 


$20,325 


$20.89 


$21,482 


$21,036 


Estimated 
Number of Hours 


239,167 


327,083 


825,000 


875,000 


2,266,250 


Total Amount 


$4,994,299 


$6,647,952 


$17,234,366 


$18,796,513 


$47,673,130 



Comments: 



The Human Services Commis si on ap p rov e d the p r oposed 



contract modification with IHSS Consortium on December 
21, 2001. 

1. As shown in Attachment II, the total composite hourly 
rate to be charged to DHS by IHSS Consortium under the 
subject modification for the provision of both intensive and 
regular supervision services, which includes benefits, 
training, travel, insurance, and administrative costs, as well 
as worker wages, would be $20.32 for the period of February 
1, 2002 through June 30, 2002. This hourly rate is an 
increase of $1.20, or 6.3 percent, from $19.12 to $20.32, for 
the regular supervision services currently provided by Addus 
under a seven-month extension to their prior three-year 
contract that expires on January 31, 2002. Regular 
supervision services totaling $18,458,757 would account for 
38.7 percent of the modified total contract amount of 
$47,673,130. However, the proposed new composite hourly 
rate of $20.32 for the period of February 1, 2002 through 
June 30, 2002 is a decrease of $0.56, or 2.7 percent, from 
$20.88, for the intensive supervision services currently 
provided by IHSS Consortium. Intensive supervision services 
totaling $29,214,373 would account for 61.3 percent of the 
modified total contract amount. 

Regular supervision service hours totaling 906,250 would 
account for approximately 40 percent of the modified total 
contract hours of 2,266,250. Intensive supervision service 
hours totaling 1,360,000 would account for approximately 60 
percent of the modified total contract hours. 

Mr. Curto advises that all workers performing regular and 
intensive supervision services would be paid in accordance 
with the City's Minimum Compensation Ordinance. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



2. Because a new regular supervision contract was not 
awarded upon the expiration of DHS's three-year contract 
with Addus on June 30, 2001, a contract extension with 
Addus was approved by the Finance Committee and the full 
Board of Supervisors (File 01-1561) for the seven-month 
period from July 1, 2001 through January 31, 2002. That 
extension increased the contract by $4,182,526, from 
$17,197,171 to $21,379,697 in order to prevent a disruption 
of service to clients. This extension was approved by the 
Board of Supervisors in October of 2001. 



3. Under the proposed contract modification, IHSS 
Consortium would provide 31,250 hours per month of regular 
supervision services, or 375,000 hours per year over the 29- 
month term of the proposed modified contract, which is the 
same number of monthly hours provided under the prior 35- 
month contract and the seven-month contract extension with 
Addus. 

4. On October 24, 2001, DHS issued a new RFP for the 
regular supervision IHSS contract. As shown in Attachment 
III, the IHSS Consortium, Addus Healthcare, Nurse 
Providers Inc. and Maxim Healthcare Services Inc. 
submitted proposals to DHS for the provision of regular 
supervision in-home supportive services. Mr. Curto states 
that four panelists representing the National Council on the 
Aging, the State Department of Social Services Adult 
Programs, Premier Medical Services and the Aging and 
Adult Services of Contra Costa County evaluated the four 
proposals. As shown in Attachment VI, the evaluation 
criteria included the firm's program design, organizational 
background and ability, and fiscal considerations. 
Attachment rV, provided by DHS, includes the scoring 
details and evaluation criteria used by the four panelists. 

The RFP evaluation was based on a total of 100 points, and 
the fiscal considerations were 20 points or 20 percent of the 
total of 100 points as shown in Attachment VI. Mr. Curto 
notes that, as shown on page 2 of Attachment IV, both Addus 
and IHSS Consortium received the same amount of points for 
both questions which addressed fiscal considerations, 53 and 
19 for questions CI and C2 respectively. However, as shown 
in Attachment V, IHSS Consortium proposed to provide 
regular supervision services at a lower rate per hour 
throughout the 29-month contract period. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



JAN-18-2002 10:16 HARUEY M ROSE flCC CORP 415 252 0461 P. 02 

Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

As shown in Attachment V, the hourly rates for regular 
supervision services proposed by Addus for the five month 
period from February 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002, Fiscal 
Year 2002-2003 and Fiscal Year 2003-2004 were $0.33, $0.28 
and $0.19 respectively more than IHSS Consortium's 
proposed rates. As shown in Attachment V, the Addus 
proposal would cost $19,108,027, which is $224,609 or 1.2 
percent more than the cost of such services of $18,883,418 as 
proposed by the IHSS Consortium. 

Mr. Curto states in Attachment ILthat upon approval of the 

proposed contract modification and the termination of the 
DHS's contract with Addus for the provision by IHSS 
Consortium of regular supervision in-home supportive 
services, "the City will not continue to receive the gross payroll 
tax generated by the Addus contract (a for profit Contractor), 
Addus states in their protest letter to the award of RFP #208 
[issued October 24, 2001] that their proposal would generate 
$170,000 in tax revenue to the City over the life of the 
contract." The Budget Analyst notes that discounting the 
$170,000 tax revenues from $224,609 represents the 
increased cost of the Addus proposal over the IHSS 
Consortium proposal, which would still result in a $54,609 
cost savings advantage from the IHSS Consortium proposal 
($224,609 less $170,000). 

As shown in Attachment IV, the IHSS Consortium proposal 
received a rating of 366 points from the four panelists as 
compared to a rating of 355 points received by the Addus 
proposal. 

5. In his January 15, 2002 letter to DHS (Attachment VII), 
Mr. Kim Kruser, Vice President - Government Services 
Western Region for Addus has submitted revised hourly 
rates to replace the original Addus cost proposal. Mr. Curto 
advises that although these revised hourly rates are lower 
than the hourly rates proposed by the IHSS Consortium, 
November 27, 2001 was the deadline date for submission of 
the proposal, according to the RFP. In response to this new 
Addus proposal outlined in the January 15, 2002 letter, Mr. 
Trent Rhorer states in Attachment VIII "DHS has not had 
the opportunity to evaluate this information nor can it 
appropriately consider additional submissions in response to 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



an RFP past the deadline. DHS' initial response is that this 
submission is untimely and cannot be considered." 

6. Based on the fact that the IHSS Consortium submitted 
the lowest cost proposal of $18,883,418 as compared to the 
$19,108,027 cost proposal of Addus and based on the 
selection panel's highest rating of the IHSS Consortium's 
proposal at 366 points compared to 355 points received by 
Addus, the Budget Analyst recommends approval of the 
proposed resolution. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET, ANALYST 



K. Ituil-cf Sumnian «ith Kivcal Year liuU^cis 



Attachment I 



BUDGET SUMMARY 








Document Date 


8-Jan-O: 






IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES CONSORTIUM 


Contract Term 
7/1701 -6/30/O4 






r'C7.*o One) New Renewal 

it noS • aw Eli-cuve Date ol Mod 2/1702 


l.'odil.raiion x_ 

No 0' Mod 1 






Modificaiion Penod 

2'1702 - 6.T0r04 






PrfjG-'am Ir.-hsomc SuCCon.ve Services with 


FISCAL YEAR 
01-02 


FISCAL YEAR 
02-03 


FISCAL YEAR 
03-04 


CURRE'/T 
TOTAL 


MODIFIED 


MODIFIED 
YR2 


MODIFIED 
YR3 


NEW TOTAL 


TOTAL 

DIFFERENCE 




Term 






















IHSS Prouder Wanes 
rul! Ti.no 


$4 104 173 


S4 674 1R6 


S5 272 230 


S1; 140 S94 


S5 639 412 


S8 726 415 


S9 430 848 


S23 996 674 


S9 E56 081 




Parll.ru 




















IHSS Provider bmploymcnl 1 aee* 
S.vr.l Snci.m.jFlCA, 


S383-23S- 


S42S-696- 


S47S-S43- 


SI 287 477 


_ -S532.731 


S793e99- 


. S856 412 


$2 183 042 


_ ._ S895.566 




fc-onmi unanMovmi mi iFufAJ ] 






















SSi) 711 


SG2 330 


S66 55J 


S1B7 9S5 


S102 024 


S169010 


S176 435 


$447 469 


S255 475 




suit OaaaMviia iSfii 




















II ISS Provider Worker's Compensation 


S526 fiiia 


S7C0 230 


So-u 450 


S? 173 678 


S726 615 


SI 187 520 


SI 444 S73 


$3 358 917 


SI 185 239 




IHSS Provider Employment Benefits 


S2I56-11 


$232 723 


S2S4 030 


S702 305 


S299 S47 


S430 385 


S466 1,7 


Si 705 049 


S50? 655 




S.rk L.'.^.- 


Sua 050 


SOI 670 


S 100 072 


S276 701 


S118 0OJ 


SI73001 


SI03 62? 


$474 717 


SlUBOIrj 




Ho Hilly ilfi? -7j 


S,r>4 SSI 


Sl7*6l7 


SJ0n64l 


SltnOr',0 


S?52 224 


S?u0 50? 


$709 (sen 


S2I3 244 




ri.Mllli irv.i.r.ir.c.- Sn04 7tl7 


$707 50, 


S.-.17 3"0 


S? 149 7 JO 


S«57 44 7 


Si SiM 


Si 476013 


SI 603 300 


$1 5,3607 




C -.itnl lM,„r.,,ic.i 


S1U7 U3I 


Si?.-.f.jn 


SU0 074 


S3E3 004 


SI47 Bill 


S?27 129 


S253 104 


$.128 1,4 


$244 420 




<j:.„-r 


SI53 20O 


St 71 Sfi 


Sl'.O'jOS 


SS1BS77 


S??4 SS'i 


S347 IJ0 


$374 3n7 


SMli 006 


S427 4B0 




IHSS Provider Travol Costs 

I.....-1 W.i.io 


iPMO'.l 


$1.11234 


SJ75K70 


SI OOfi 117 


S424 3l3fi 


Si">4? 034 


Si'iO? 778 


$1 750 10O 


$751 082 






S.M'. Hf, 1 


S'.l 4(14 


S'..- 2'iK 


S27SSSJ 


Sll?'J.'t". 


$170 400 


$170 373 


$4„7 704 


ivj. 151 




IHSS Provldor Orientation/Skill Dev 
[J. n w.,„.-i 


SUS V» 


S.J177J 


S71T-4 


S2CS 310 


S f a 3ju 


SI4J 503 


$151 04V 


S3O0O4 3 


S185 027 




1 1...11..M] StaflOttiMiltiiilk 


$/>8 


iri> 


J/11 


$-• K) 


Simn 


$2 MM 


Sll.-. 


$/ „0I, 


$'. s:j 




Otl.-r ll. «£•»■< 






















Ajjmin.slralivo Salaries 


SIM 1,4 


$371 4111 


S420 ory. 


$1 149 223 


S4H1 300 


S4H0 R04 


$',33 2711 


SI 415530 


S.iOnllt! 




Or. hi 


$v,.,74 


S..I HE' 


Us TO! 


J.rut.v, 


in.' una 


S 1 1 L H02 


$120,,... 


$ IK, on.. 






HC-S :>..|--rv.-.r-s 


V« :■! 


tin iff} 


$70,1... 


S? 115JW1 


$/„; :,.m 


si mi non 


$,.,...• 4M 


$,„„,„',/ 


i'^0 :,oi 






















(Vdrrarotlrallv. Ta.es 

fWl.ll S.V...IIV 11 ICAj 


S7iia..t 


Sii7rn:i 


S'I7 710 


S?m n?n 


SOS 700 


5121)000 


$141 71X1 


$V41 OOII 


$103 088 


'"I.":' 1 ""." .•..llnWIlllA) 




















:,i.,i..i/.„,..,«,.n.. 1, -. I--.1JI) 


f,u:v 


%:<:■; 


Jr. 01? 


SI.. 41,7 


^, l~li 


$1 101.7 


iiiiHin 


$:.:,, .u 


118 5?J 






















Adrrvmslralive Worker's Compensation 


$17 oru 


Sir, 1 7ii 


S.-in-vi 


S4'. n w 


sir, ?',', 


S?4 104 


$?0 771 


SO0 130 


$io2on 


AdmmiilralfM benoliis 




















Waraum 




















*.. h 1 ISWi 




















► Sfsarlav 




















ll-Mllll 111-. MM. 11 1. 


>/u h.13 


Sit t iv 


SllKl',.,1 


BM «» 


tim/jcii 


S124074 


IMI.DZ. 


$I'.2'1U2 


$O8 0,,? 


[.-111. Mlf-inr.- 


sit uri 


iiVM 


till .,,n 


141 KJ7 


SIJ.223 


S20 571 


$23 41,, 


SMI 225 


$10 3'U 


Oll.r.r 


$10 7,1, 


iu'v.o 


Sthjii 


i , ,.,V J .,9 


S37.S11 


SW070 


JM1.3M 


iuNniu 


$40 4? b 


Adm.milrallv. Travel 








SO 








SO 


SO 




V- /'i/ 


Si. :'T4 


SAM" 


Slf 70? 


$H07S 


SlIKOO 


$,?4IJ 


$3? 400 


$1 1 707 


Insurance and Bonding 


S?73is 


$vin.i7 


Snnsi 


Son an 


S3'. SO? 


Son 433 


S01 973 


$130 OOfl 


SJ0SA5 


A.iinmrv-lr. iiivirincr. 




















Ficii nay Brum 


11 U.,7 


$4 tos 


SJ 173 


Si? SOS 


^3O07 


$4 105 


$4 373 


$12 505 


U 


Prdrmm |lrv„1 




















Lntl.w o 1 Orvl.1 




















Ott.ee Expenses 


$134 fU3 


S IV, 7?3 


SHvjv 


SJ10 223 


SI57 918 


S 195 528 


$109 80(1 


$553 251 


S143 028 


r...T..I.-n.in. n'Ji.-.ii.vni 


S-. 800 


S7 m 




S?14nJ 


SnK09 


S7JJ9 


$7 so<:. 


$21 404 


so 


UMil..^ SI? fitt 


Si- UJ 1 




S4??SS 


SI? 7.>, 


SU 043 


S15447 


SJ?255 


SO 


- n .„r,m..n, r.r>w 


$24 271 


St? 420 


S.7n3« 


S09 33S 


sn tse 


SO 


SO 


$14 158 


l«M"l 


Erjipprwrtl UainlnrUHSCq 


SH,rJ4 


SO07B 


S9S3II 


S27 2J9 


Sll 410 


S15 888 


$16571 


S43 819 


$16 570 


EfJ.npmr.nl Or"^ ,|l"Or p.rr^h3%r.l 


S20 885 


S2S73U 


S.-9 2?J 


S7SB49 


SI2 183 


SO 


so 


$12 183 


(So., i/y.i 


Accrvinunrj *nrj r-n:a Prnressinn 


SI 7 440 


S 1 8 30 1 


siisei 


SSS 3S6 


S??696 


S31 306 


$3? 84 1 


$86 843 


$31 4n7 


lo..^r,ry>- 


SI? 128 


SI? 491 


S ' ? Wr> 


S37 48S 


SIS 603 


S21 543 


S2_? 155 


$59 501 


SJ2016 


i^cruan? 


$7819 


$7,8,9 


SM01B 


S23e!»5 


SI0473 


S14 Sb6 


S14 727 


$39,550 


$15899 


Pnolocopvi.^ Pnm.nn 


S4 7 7b 


S502B 


\i 303 


SIS 109 


S6 4S3 


S9 153 


$9 537 


S25 ,43 


$10 034 


SuDfiPS 


S19 837 


SJ1 391 


S?3 053 


S64 ?6? 


S27 990 


S41 472 


$43661 


$113,124 


$48 84? 




S3 549 


S3 655 


S3 76S 


S10 969 


so eas 


Sll 872 


$12 197 


$30 954 


S199C5 


Otner Cost, 


J75 107 


S76 921 


S76 639 


S230 66S 


S80BS3 


S11331S 


$116 188 


$319 386 


S88 518 


Profit IPropnetarv Firms] 














Aud't 


$9 830 


S10 32I 


SI0E37 


S30 988 


sis.590 


S24 508 


S2S 397 


$65 495 


S34 506 


TOTAL COSTS 


SB 561 6SJ 


$0.-43649 


Sll 009 070 


S20 2U 373 


Sll 642 2S0 


S17 234 366 


SI8 796,513 


$47 673 130 


S1B4S8 757 


Prepared bv 




(415I?5^?07S 


1 »«.rvwn. f^l 













II la'S Consuniuni - IHSS •W Inicnsivr: and RcguJi; SupcnisK 



22 



Appendix B-l, p. 5 



City and County of San Francisco 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 3 

Department of Human Services 



To: Budget Analyst Office 

From: David Curto, Director of Contracts 

Datfi- January 14 J 700? 



Re: IHSS Consortium Modification resulting from RFP #208 and Chronology 



The Department of Human Services issued RFP 198 (In Home Supportive Services 
with regular Supervision) on February 14, 2001. Proposals were due on March 27, 2001. 
Two proposals were received as of the due date: one from Addus Healthcare and one from 
the In-Home Supportive Services Consortium. The review panel that was convened on 
April 10, 2001 rated the Consortium proposal higher so the contract was tentatively 
awarded to the IHSS Consortium on April 17, 2001. Addus Healthcare subsequently filed 
a formal protest of the RFP process. The protest was found to have merit and was upheld 
by DHS Executive Director Trent Rhorer. 

To address the issues raised by Addus Healthcare, the Department initially decided 
to convene a separate review panel. The new panel would have been convened in late 
July/early August, with the new decision presented to the Human Services Commission, 
and then the Board of Supervisors, in August 2001, and the new contract would have 
started on September 1, 2001. 

It was under this scenario that the Department negotiated a two-month extension 
with Addus Healthcare to continue services through August 31, 2001, in order to prevent a 
disruption in service to clients. The two main elements subject to negotiation were the 
length of the extension and the rate of the extension. Addus asked for a 12-month 
extension at the rate proposed by them ($21.76) while the Department supported a 2- 
month extension at the current contract rate ($17.57). The compromise solution was to 
have a 2-month extension at the $21.76 rate. This two-month contract extension was 
approved by the Human Services Commission on June 28, 2001 and presented to the 
Board of Supervisors Finance Committee on August 1, 2001. The Finance Committee, 
however, did not approve this modification because the increase in profits that occurred 
with the increase in rate (from $17.57/hour to $21.76/hour) seemed excessive. 

In subsequent meetings between Addus Healthcare and the Department and in 
written correspondence from Addus to the Department, Addus Healthcare raised 
additional concerns with the RFP process and with the second review panel. Based 



15-557-5000 



1650 Mission Street Suite 300 

23 



San Francisco, California 94103 



Attachment II 
Jfage 2 of 3 



on these additional concerns and the Addus' protest of the original tentative award, 
the Department canceled RPP #198 and initiated negotiations between Addus and the 
IHSS Consortium to determine the optimal share of sendee load for these clients and 
to reach a satisfactory solution to split the regular supervised hours between them. 
The new contract resulting from these negotiations was expected to begin on February 
1,2002 

With the Finance Committee's rejection of the proposed increased rate, the 
Department renegotiated with Addus Healthcare for the extension of their current 
contract. The new extension is for the period from July 1, 2001 through January 31, 
2002, with the proposed rate a modest increase, from $17.57/hour to $19.12/hour, 
which includes increasing the minimum wage to $10.00/hour and disallowed any 
pro fit; — 



The Finance committee was very clear that it would not entertain any further 
extensions of the Addus Contract and if Addus and the IHSS Consortium could not 
agree on splitting the workload that DHS would issue a new RFP and complete the 
process prior to January 31 SI , 2002. The parties did not reach agreement and DHS 
proceeded with the new RFP. 

RFP #208(In Home Supportive Services with Regular Supervision) was issued on 
October 24, 2001, with proposals due on November 27, 2001 . Four proposals were 
received and scored by an independent evaluation panel on December 4, 2001. The 
IHSS consortium again scored the highest rating from the panel. 

Addus Healthcare filed a timely protest of the intended award to the IHSS 
Consortium on December 12, 2001. Executive Director Trent Rhorer subsequently 
denied this protest on December 17, 2001. A public hearing was held on December 
21, 2001 before the Human Services Commission and at that meeting the 
Commission authorized recommendation of this contract modification to the Board of 
Supervisors for approval. 

The contract modification before the Board of Supervisors Finance Committee 
contains a negotiated composite hourly rate of reimbursement by blending the billing 
rates from RFP #199 (In Home Supportive Services with Intensive Supervision) 
approved in May of 2001 and the proposed rates under RFP #208 (In Home 
Supportive Services with Regular Supervision). 

The composite rates of $20.32, S20.89 and S21.48 provide an economy of scale 
savings to the department of 5424,661 over the three year (36-month) contract period. 



24 



Attachment II 
Page 3 o£ 3 



Period 



RFP 199: 
Intensive Supr 


hrs 
rate 


2/1/02-6/30/02 

170,833 

20.88 


7/1/02-6/30/03 

450,000 
21.43 


7/1/03-6/30/04 

500,000 

22.02 


RFP 208: 
Regular Supr 


total cost 

hrs 

rate 


3,567,356 

156,250 

20.02 


9,643,649 

375,000 
20.59 


11,009,070 

375,000 

21.42 


COMBINED: 


total cost 

hrs 

total cost 


3,127,761 

327,083 
6,695,117 


7,723,086 

825,000 
17,366,735 


8,032,571 

875,000 
19,041,641 


PROPOSED 
COMPOSITE: 


hrs 

rate 


327,083 

20.32 


825,000 
20.89 


875,000 

21.48 




total cost 


6,647,952 


17,234,366 


18,796,513 


DIFFERENCE: 


total cost 


(47,165) 


(132,369) 


(245,127) 



It should be noted that the City will not continue to receive the gross payroll tax 
generated by the Addus contract (a for profit Contractor). Addus states in their protest 
letter to the award of RFP #208 that their proposal would generate S170,000 in tax 
revenue to the city over the life of the contract. Departments have not historically 
considered the tax revenue as evaluation criteria for outsourcing of services, but it have 
some merit for consideration on this contract due to recent projections of the City and 
County's tax base. 

The savings to the Department of $424,661 minus the tax revenue of $170,000 would 
therefore result in net savings of $2^4,661 over the 29-month duration of the modified 
contract. The Department considers this as a substantial economy of scale savings for this 
type of service. 



25 



Attachment III 



City and County of San Francisco 



r. m- ,? a se 1 of 2 

Department of Human Services 




To: Budget Analyst Office 

From: David Curto, Director of Contracts 

Date: January 14, 2002 

Re: Advertisement of RFP #208 (In Home Supportive Services with Regular Supervision) 



RFP # 208 was issued on October 2001 and was advertised through the Purchasing Department in 
it's Bids & Contracts Opportunity Newsletter and on the City and County's Website 
(http://sunset.ci.sf.ca.us/pbids.nsf) with links from the Department of Human Services Website. The 
Department also advertised this RFP through the following newspapers: San Francisco Independent, 
Bay Guardian,Asian Weekly, Bay Area Reporter, El Bohemia News, The Sun Reporter, San 
Francisco Bayview, Bay Area Business Woman and El Mensejero. The Department also sent direct 
mailings to the current contractors, Addus Healthcare and the EHSS Consortium of San Francisco. 

The following organizations submitted proposals in response to RFP #208: 

Addus Healthcare 
IHSS Consortium of San Francisco 
Maxim Healthcare Services Inc. 
Nurse Providers Inc. 

The following organizations were aware of the RFP, as they provided letters in support of the EHSS 
Consortium. (Walden House letter of support in favor of Addus Healthcare) 

Arriba Juntos 

Bayview-Hunters Point Multipurpose Senior Services 

Bethany Center 

Consumers in Action for Personal Assistance 

Family Service Agency of San Francisco 

Goldman Institute on Aging 

Independent Living Resource Center of San Francisco 

EHSS Public Authority 

Kimochi, Inc. 

Legal Assistance to the Elders, Inc. 

Little Brothers - Friends of the Elderly 

North of Market Senior Services 






(415-557-5000 



1650 Mission Street Suite 300 

26 



San Francisco, California 94103 



jit-uacnmenu 111 
Pape 2 of 2 



Northern California Presbyterian Homes and Services 

On-Lok Senior Center 

Planning for Elders in the Central City 

Project Open Hand 

San Francisco Adult Day Services Network 

Senior Action Network 

Seniors At Home - Jewish Family and Children Services 

Self-Help for the Elderly 

Western Addition Senior Citizen's Senior Center, Inc. 

Walden House * 



27 



RFP 208 Scoring Summary 



-ai_iuneu i_ J. V 



Page 1 of 3 



Consortium 

Addus 

Nurse Providers 

Maxim 



Panelist 1 


Panelist 2 


Panelist 3 


Panelist 4 


Total 


Avg 


84 


96 


89 


97 


366 


91.50 


78 


92 


90 


95 


355 


88.75 


46 


76 


59 


50 


231 


57.75 


54 


78 


51 


35 


218 


54.50 



Panelist 1 is the Project Director at the National Council On the Aging 

Panelist 2 is an AGPA from the CDSS Adult Programs 

Panelist 3 is a former President and CEO of Premier Medical Services 

Panelist 4 is the Aging and Adult Services Division Manager from Contra Costa County 



28 



RFP 208 Scoring Detail 



Attachment IV 
Pase 2 of 3 



Panelist 1 Addus 

Panelist 1 Consortium 

Panelist 1 Maxim 

Panelist 1 Nurse Providers 

Panelist 2 Addus 

Panelist 2 Consortium 

Panelist 2 Maxim 

Panelist 2 Nurse Providers 

Panelist 3 Addus 

Panelist 3 Consortium 

Panelist 3 Maxim 

Panelist 3 Nurse Providers 

Panelist 4 Addus 

Panelist 4 Consortium 

Panelist 4 Maxim 

Panelist 4 Nurse Providers 



A1 


A2 


A3 


A4 


A5 


A6 


B1 


B2 


B3 


C1 


C2 


Total 


5 


5 


7 


5 


3 


3 


14 


8 


9 


14 


5 


78 


5 


7 


9 


9 


3 


4 


11 


10 


9 


13 


4 


84 


4 


8 


5 


5 


2 


3 


10 


5 


5 


5 


2 


54 


2 


4 


5 


3 


2 


2 


7 


7 


7 


5 


2 


46 


5 


10 


9 


8 


4 


4 


15 


10 


9 


13 


5 


92 


5 


10 


8 


10 


5 


5 


15 


10 


10 


13 


5 


96 


2 


9 


8 


8 


3 


3 


12 


8 


8 


13 


4 


78 


3 


8 


8 


8 


3 


3 


13 


8 


7 


11 


4 


76 


5 


10 


10 


5 


5 


5 


15 


10 


10 


11 


4 


90 


5 


9 


10 


8 


5 


5 


10 


10 


10 


12 


5 


89 


3 


5 


7 


4 


4 


1 


8 


4 


8 


5 


2 


51 


3 


8 


5 


6 


4 


2 


8 


5 


8 


8 


2 


59 


4 


10 


10 


8 


4 


5 


15 


10 


9 


15 


5 


95 


5 


10 


10 


9 


5 


5 


13 


10 


10 


15 


5 


97 


1 


6 


4 


4 


3 


1 


3 


3 


3 


2 


5 


35 


3 


7 


4 


4 


2 


3 


7 


6 


4 


5 


5 


50 



Panelist 1 


Addus 


Panelist 2 


Addus 


Panelist 3 


Addus 


Panelist 4 


Addus 


Panelist 1 


Consortium 


Panelist 2 


Consortium 


Panelist 3 


Consortium 


Panelist 4 


Consortium 


Panelist 1 


Maxim 


Panelist 2 


Maxim 


Panelist 3 


Maxim 


Panelist 4 


Maxim 



Panelist 1 Nurse Providers 

Panelist 2 Nurse Providers 

Panelist 3 Nurse Providers 

Panelist 4 Nurse Providers 



A1 


A2 


A3 


A4 


A5 


A6 


B1 


B2 


B3 


C1 


C2 


Total 


5 


5 


7 


5 


3 


3 


14 


8 


9 


14 


5 


78 


5 


10 


9 


8 


4 


4 


15 


10 


9 


13 


5 


92 


5 


10 


10 


5 


5 


5 


15 


10 


10 


11 


4 


90 


4 


10 


10 


8 


4 


5 


15 


10 


9 


15 


5 


95 


5 


7 


9 


9 


3 


4 


11 


10 


9 


13 


4 


84 


5 


10 


8 


10 


5 


5 


15 


10 


10 


13 


5 


96 


5 


9 


10 


8 


5 


5 


10 


10 


10 


12 


5 


89 


5 


10 


10 


9 


5 


5 


13 


10 


10 


15 


5 


97 


4 


8 


5 


5 


2 


3 


10 


5 


5 


5 


2 


54 


2 


9 


8 


8 


3 


3 


12 


8 


8 


13 


4 


78 


3 


5 


7 


4 


4 


1 


8 


4 


8 


5 


2 


51 


1 


6 


4 


4 


3 


1 


3 


3 


3 


2 


5 


35 


2 


4 


5 


3 


2 


2 


7 


7 


7 


5 


2 


46 


3 


8 


8 


8 


3 


3 


13 


8 


7 


11 


4 


76 


3 


8 


5 


6 


4 


2 


8 


5 


8 


8 


2 


59 


3 


7 


4 


4 


2 


3 


7 


6 


4 


5 


5 


50 



29 



Attachment IV 
Page 3 of 3 



Key to Scoring: Evaluation Criteria A 1-6 = Program Design elements 

A-1= Understanding of Client needs 

A-2 = Staff Development 

A-3 = Program Planning including emergency needs 

A-4 = Community Reinvestment Plan 

A-5 = Demonstrated History of Community Outreach and participation 

A-6 = Service Objectives and Outcome measures 

Evaluation Criteria B 1-3 = Organizational Background 
and Ability elements 

B-1 = Organizational Capacity 

B-2 = Demonstrated Knowledge and Expertise of Services to Clients 

Evaluation Criteria C 1-2 = Fiscal Considerations 

C-1 = Budget reflective of adequate resources, costs, result in a 

reasonable hourly rate of reimbursement 

C-2 = Demonstrated proof of financial responsibility and viability 



30 



Attachment V 



Period 



Period 



Period 



Total Proposed 







2/1/02-6/30/02 


7/1/02-6/30/03 


7/1/03-6/30/04 


2/1/02-6/30/04 


fflSS 
Consortium: 


his 
rate 


156,250 
20.02 


375,000 

20.59 


375,000 

21.42 


906,250 




total cost 


3,127,761 


7,723,086 


8,032,571 


18,883,418 


Addus 
Healthcare: 


hrs 

rate 


156,250 
20.35 


375,000 

20.87 


375,000 

21.61 


906,250 




total cost 


3,179,471 


7,825,336 


8,103,220 


19,108,027 


Maxim 
Healthcare: 


hrs 
rate 


156,250 
21.41 


375,000 

22.91 


375,000 
24.51 


906,250 




total cost 


3,345,313 


8,590,763 


9,192,116 


21,128,192 


**Nurse 
Providers: 


hrs 
rate 


156,000 
15.33 


156,000 

16.05 


156,000 
16.88 


468,000 



total cost 



2,390,824 



2,504,082 



2,632,752 



7,527,658 



** Note: Nurse providers only proposed to provide a maximum of 156,000 hours in contract period. They 
did not have the capacity to provide the total number of hours requested in the RFP. 



31 



fvcuacnmenc vi 

Paee 1 of 4 



RATING SHEET/ EVALUATION CRITERIA 



FOR REP #208 - TO PROVIDE IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES WITH 

REGULAR SUPERVISION 

RESPONDENT/AGENCY: 

EVALUATOR: (leave blank) 



Items A through C are the criteria for reviewing proposals. The weight of each item is 
indicated in parenthesis and will be scored according to the degree to which the proposal 
answers the question. 



TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS 



[100] 



A. Program Design (45) 



Does the proposal demonstrate the necessary understanding of the needs 
of San Francisco City/County IHSS clients, in order to provide effective 
services? (5) 



Comments: 


Points 

















Does the proposal clearly and adequately address staff development? This 
includes the recruiting, orientation, training, and management of providers 
and supervisory staff, evaluation of competencies, development of training 
curricula and schedule, and monitoring of effectiveness of training. (10) 



Comments: 


Points 

















RFP2C 



Rating Sheet 



p.l 



32 



Attachment VI 
Pa.qe 2 otl 



3. Does the proposal clearly and adequately address program planning? Do 

the job descriptions/position qualifications/staffing plan, plan to respond 
to emergency IHSS needs, supervision plan, and communications with 
DHS indicate that the respondent has the organizational planning to 
effectively provide IHSS? (10) 



Comments: 


Points 

















Does the proposal's Community Reinvestment Plan adequately address 
the provision of continuous reinvestment into the community for the term 
of the contract? Is the amount of Reinvestment commensurate with the 
expected size of the contract? (10) 



Comments: 


Points 

















Does the Respondent demonstrate a solid history of community outreach 
and participation in community forums/meetings that affect IHSS services. 
Does the Proposal include an adequate plan that continues the engagement 
of local community-based and advocate organizations through the term of 
the contract? Does the plan adequately solicit community feedback 
regarding the quality of service provision and the documentation of quality 
assurance efforts? (5) 



Comments: Points 



















RFP 208 - Ratmc Sheet 



P-2 



33 



Auuacninenc vi 
Page 3 of 4 



Does the proposal clearly state service objectives that will effectively 
measure the quantity, quality, and responsiveness of services? Does the 
proposal clearly state outcome objectives that will effectively measure the 
impact of services? Does the proposal explain how these objectives will 
be tracked and reported including tools and staffing? Do the service 
objectives reflect a reasonable amount of services in view of the goals and 
services requested of this contract? (5) 



Comments: 


Points 

















B. Organizational Background and Ability (35) 

1 . Does the respondent appear to have the organizational capacity to 

effectively provide the services proposed? This includes an appropriate 
organizational structure and staffing pattern to handle the volume of 
clients and staffing issues that would arise during the term of the contract. 
(15) 



Comments: 


Points 

















Has the proposal demonstrated adequate knowledge of IHSS and related 
services? Has the respondent demonstrated expertise in the piovision of 
IHSS-related services to low-income elderly/disabled population? Has the 
respondent demonstrated client advocacy? Has the respondent 
demonstrated the ability to work cooperatively with county IHSS staff? (10) 



Comments: 


Points 

















RFP 208 - Ratins Sheet 



P' J 34 



Page 4 ot 4 



Does the proposal demonstrate that the respondent has the cultural, ethnic, 
language, disability expertise needed to provide quality IHSS to the 
population in San Francisco? Does the proposal demonstrate community 
services ability, as reflected in the organization's community service 
goals, board of directors, staffing, and history'? (10) 



Comments: 


Points 

















C. Fiscal Considerations (20) 



Does the budget reflect sound and adequate allocation of resources 
matching the program components including staffing, operating costs, 
capital costs (as appropriate), and management? Is the budget clear, 
complete, and well-documented (internal consistency of budget costs, 
appropriate and practical overhead, fringe benefits, wage rates and account 
of detail requirements for merit increases.) Does the budget include any 
unreasonable costs? Is the budget cost effective? (15) 



Comments: 


Points 

















Based on contract history, audited financial statements, corporate 
structure, and other information, does the proposal reflect financial 
viability and responsibility? (5) 



Comments: Points 

















RFP 208 - Rating Sheet 



p.4 



35 



Attachment VII 
Fase 1 ot 2 



"41 • 



Providing Quality Healthcare Since 1977 

January 15, 2002 

Trent Rhorer 

Executive Director 

Department of Human Services 

City and County of San Francisco 

170 Otis, 8 th Floor 

San Francisco, California 94120 

Dear Mr. Rhorer: 

This correspondence is sent for consideration prior to recommendation for final 
Board of Supervisors approval of the contract award under RFP #208. The RFP 
allows consideration of offers and/ or negotiations with other qualified proposers. 
Further, there appears to be no requirement that the Board award the contract 
exclusively on the basis of the scoring by the Proposal Evaluation Panel. 
Therefore, on behalf of Addus Healthcare I am submitting a revised pricing 
proposal for your Department's consideration. 

Please find attached a revised Proposal Cover Letter and revised Required 
Contract Budgets and Budget Narratives for the contract periods specified in 
RFP #208. The revised proposed billing rates are as follows: 



Period 



2/1/02 to 6/30/02 



Hourly Billing Rate 
S19.69 



7/1/02 to 6/30/03 
7/1/03 to 6/30/04 



S20.35 

S21.08 



We believe these revisions warrant serious consideration by your Department. 
These rate revisions constitute significant cost savings over our initial proposal. 
For example, for the period ending June 30, 2002 the cost of this contract would 
decrease by $103,125.00; for the period ending June 30, 2003 the cost of the 
contract would decrease by $195,000.00; and, for the period ending June 30, 
2004 the cost of this contract would decrease $198,750.00. The cumulative cost 
reduction over the contract period is $496,875.00. Additionally, if this contract is 
awarded to Addus the City of San Francisco will retain almost $200,000.00 in 
local business tax revenue that it would otherwise lose if awarded to a nonprofit 
agency. The cumulative, known savings and retained local business tax revenue 
is almost $700,000.00 under this proposal. 



36 



r a oicn 



ceo t)^ ssn 



AEtacnrnent vii 
Page 2 oi 2 



Trent Rhorer 
January 15, 2002 
Page Two 

Thank you for your kind consideration of this correspondence and please call me 
if you or your staff have any further inquiries related to this proposal. 

Cordially, 

Kim Kruser 

Vice President- Government Services 

Western Region 

Enclosures (3) 

cc: The Honorable Willie Brown, Mayor, City of San Francisco, w/o 
Enclosures 
The Honorable Tom Amiano, Chairman, Finance Committee, San 

Francisco Board of Supervisors, w/o Enclosures 
Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 



37 



Attachment VIII 

City and County of San Francisco Department of Human Services 




January 17,2002 



Budget Analyst Office 
Mr. Harvey Rose 



Sub: Response to Addus letter dated January 15, 2002 
Re: Additional Consideration Relating to RFP #208 

Dear Mr. Rose, 



DHS received Addus's revised pricing proposal on January 1 6, 2002, well after the 
November 27, 2001 deadline published in RFP#208. DHS has not had the opportunity to 
evaluate this information nor can it appropriately consider additional submissions in 
response to an RFP past the deadline. DHS' initial response is that this submission is 
untimely and cannot be considered. 



Sincerely, 



Trent Rhorer 
Executive Director 



(41 5) 557-5000 P.O. Box 7988 San Francisco, California 9411 

38 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 01-2281 

Note: This proposed resolution was continued by the Finance Committee at the 
Finance Committee Meeting of January 9, 2002 so that the Airport could 
respond to specific questions of the Finance Committee concerning the 
Airport's cost of free services to be provided under the proposed agreement. 
The Budget Analyst has requested further cost details from the Airport, 
but has not received an adequate response to such questions as of the 
writing of this report. Therefore, the Budget Analyst recommends that the 
proposed resolution be continued to the Call of the Chair to permit 
additional time for the Airport to respond and to allow a review of their 
response. 



Department: 
Item: 



Location: 



Purpose of Lease 
and Operating 
Agreement: 



Lessor: 



Lessee: 

Term of Lease 
and Operating 
Agreement: 



Airport Commission 

Resolution approving a Lease and Operating Agreement 
between Smarte Carte, Inc. and the City and County of San 
Francisco, acting by and through the Airport Commission, 
for the operation of the Self-Service Luggage Cart Program 
at the San Francisco International Airport. 

San Francisco International Airport and the Airport's Rental 
Car Facility, located on Airport property at McDonnell Road. 

Concession space for the purpose of (1) renting self-service 
luggage carts to passengers, and, (2) operating the free cart 
services for the "Customs Program", "Rental Car Facility 
Program" and the "AirTrain 1 Failure Contingency 
Program" (see Description below for program descriptions). 

City and County of San Francisco by and through the Airport 
Commission 

Smarte Carte, Inc. 

Five years, commencing no earlier than February 1, 2002 
and no later than April 1, 2002, and terminating after five 
years from this commencement date in 2007. 



Right of Renewal: Five, one-year extensions, beginning in 2007. 



Annual Rent 
Payable by 
Smarte Carte 
to the Airport: 



The annual rent payable to the Airport from Smarte Carte, 
Inc. for the Self-Service Luggage Cart Rental Program at the 
Airport will be the greater of either the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee of $450,000, or 15 percent of gross revenues. The 



1 As part of the Airport's Master Plan Program, the Airport is constructing an on-Airport AirTrain 
system (the "AirTrain") to transport passengers throughout the -Airport, to and from the Rental Car 
Facility and BART. The AirTrain is scheduled to be operational on August 10, 2002. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

39 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Utilities and 

Janitorial 

Services: 



Amount Payable 
by Airport to 
Smarte 
Carte, Inc.: 



Description of 
Proposed Lease 
and Operating 
Agreement: 



Minimum Annual Guarantee will be adjusted annually on 
the anniversary date of the subject agreement. The 
adjustment is based on a formula, which compares the 
percentage increase in "U.S. City Average - Transportation 
Services" Consumer Price Index (CPI) and the total number 
of airline passengers on the anniversary date to the "U.S. 
City Average - Transportation Services" CPI and the total 
number of airline passengers at the commencement of the 
subject agreement. The Minimum Annual Guarantee can 
only increase. 

The Lessee will pay for the costs of all utilities and 
janitorial services. According to Ms. Patricia Maitland of 
the Airport, janitorial services are not broken out as a line 
item in the lessor's budget because their employees 
perform this function as a part of their regular duties. 

The Airport would be responsible for payment to Smarte 
Carte, Inc. the gross total "not to exceed" amount of 
$12,886,000 for operating the free cart services in the 
"Customs Program", "Rental Car Facility Program" and the 
"AirTrain Failure Contingency Program", over the five- 
year term of the subject agreement or an average gross 
amount of $2,577,200 per year (see Comment No. 6). 
However, Smarte Carte, Inc. must pay the Airport a 
minimum total rent of $2,250,000 (Minimum Annual 
Guarantee or $450,000 for five years). Therefore, the net 
"not to exceed" amount payable to Smarte Carte is 
$10,636,000 ($12,866,000 less $2,250,000). 

The proposed Luggage Cart Lease and Operating 
Agreement (Agreement) comprises two major parts: (1) the 
operation of the Self-Service Luggage Cart Rental Program 
as a concession; and (2) the provision of luggage carts free 
of charge under the "Customs Program", the "Rental Car 
Facility Program", and the "AirTrain Failure Contingency 
Program" (the "Free Services") as described below. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

40 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Self-Service Luggage Cart Rental Program: 

Under the proposed Agreement, Smarte Carte, Inc. would (a) 
provide a fleet of no less than 3,000 luggage carts, equipped 
with brakes 2 available for rent at $2 per cart or such amount 
approved by the Airport Director, (b) install, maintain and 
repair, of such luggage carts, (c) install, maintain and repair 
of luggage cart vending units, which automatically dispense 
luggage carts to the public; (d) collect and relocate luggage 
carts as-needed. Smarte Carte, Inc. will pay the Airport 
concession rent equal to the greater of the Minimum Annual 
Guarantee amount of $450,000 or 15 percent of gross 
revenues (see Comment No. 1). 

Free Services: 

(1) Customs Program . Smarte Carte, Inc. must provide no 
less than 2,000 luggage carts in the Customs area of the 
International Terminal where arriving international 
passengers are subject to Federal inspection services. The 
luggage carts will continue to be available without a rental 
charge in the custom area as they are currently (see 
Comment No. 2). 

(2) Rental Car Facility Program . Smarte Carte, Inc. must 
provide no less than 500 luggage carts at the Rental Car 
Facility until AirTrain is operational and open to the public 
for transport to the Rental Car Facility. The luggage carts 
will continue to be available without a rental charge in these 
areas as they are currently (see Comment No. 3). 

(3) AirTrain Failure Contingency Plan . Smarte Carte, 
Inc. must provide no less than 500 luggage carts at the 
Rental Car Facility upon notification from the Airport that 
there is or may be an AirTrain failure, and buses must be 
used to transport passengers from the Airport Terminal to 
the Rental Car Facility. Smarte Carte, Inc. must provide, 
luggage carts in the Rental Car Facility free of charge until 
the AirTrain service resumes or as otherwise directed by 
Airport Director. 



- The terms of the proposed Agreement require Smarte Carte to equip the luggage carts with brakes. 
Existing self-service luggage carts do not have brakes, according to Ms. Maitland. Ms. Maitland 
advises that Smarte Carte will either equip their existing fleet of luggage carts with brakes or 
manufacture new carts with brakes in order to meet the terms of the subject Agreement. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

41 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

As with the Self-Service Luggage Cart Rental Program, 
Smarte Carte, Inc. would also be responsible for the (a) 
installation, maintenance and repair of the luggage carts; (b) 
installation, maintenance and repair of the vending units; 
and, (c) collection and relocation of luggage carts as-needed 
for the free carts. 

Attachment I, provided by the Airport, is a list of luggage 
cart vending machine locations at the Airport. The total 
fleet of luggage carts that Smarte Carte, Inc. must supply is 
no less that 5,500 carts. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Maitland, the Airport currently contracts 

with Smarte Carte, Inc. to provide (1) the operation of the 
Self-Service Luggage Cart Rental Program as a concession at 
the Airport; and (2) free cart service in the Customs area of 
the International Terminal and in the Rental Car Facility at 
a cost to the Airport. Ms. Maitland advises that the self- 
service luggage carts are currently rented for $2 per cart and 
the rental rate was last raised from $1.50 per cart to $2 per 
cart on March 1, 2000. 

In the attached memorandum from Ms. Maitland, 
Attachment II, Ms. Maitland states that the existing 
agreement with Smarte Carte, Inc. began in July of 1991 and 
expired in July of 2001. The Airport has continued to 
contract with Smarte Carte, Inc. on a month-to-month basis 
since that time under the same terms as the prior 
agreement. 

Under the existing agreement for the Self-Service Luggage 
Cart Rental Program, Smarte Carte, Inc. must pay the 
greater of either the Minimum Annual Guarantee of 
$225,000 or 16.7 percent of gross revenues. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



A comparison of revenues payable to the Airport under the 
existing agreement and the proposed agreement for the 
rental luggage carts, using actual gross Smarte Carte 
revenues for FY 1999-2000 and FY 2000-2001 is as follows: 



Existing Agreement Proposed Agreement 



Minimum Annual Guarantee 
Percentage of Gross Revenues 

FY 1999-2000 Gross Revenues 

Minimum Annual Guarantee 
(MAG) or Percentage Rent 
Payable to Airport 

FY 2000-2001 Gross Revenues 

Minimum Annual Guarantee 
(MAG) or Percentage Rent 
Payable to Airport 



$225,000 
16.7% 

$2,052,699 



$342,801 

(Percentage Rent) 

$2,249,521 



$375,670 

(Percentage Rent) 



$450,000 
15.0% 

$2,052,699 



$450,000 

(MAG) 

$2,249,521 



$450,000 

(MAG) 



Although the Minimum Annual Guarantee is $450,000 or 
S225,000 higher under the proposed Agreement, the percent 
of gross rental cart revenues is 1.7 percent less than the 
existing agreement (15 percent instead of 16.7 percent). Ms. 
Maitland advises that the 1.7 percent reduction in the 
percentage of gross revenue under the proposed Agreement is 
offset by the higher Minimum Annual Guarantee which 
places the risk of low revenues (i.e. low luggage cart rentals) 
on the Operator. Therefore, Ms. Maitland states that if 
luggage cart rentals are low, the Airport is guaranteed a 
higher Minimum Annual Payment than the Airport 
currentlv receives. 



As shown in the table above, at existing levels of gross 
Smarte Carte revenue ($2,052,669 in FY 1999-2000 and 
$2,249,521 in FY 2000-2001) the proposed Minimum Annual 
Guarantee of $450,000 would produce more revenue to the 
Airport than the percentage rent of 16.7 percent payable to 
the Airport. 

2. Ms. Maitland advises in Attachment II that the free cart 
Customs Program has been paid for by the Airport since 
1994. According to Ms. Maitland, the Airport provides free 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

A3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

carts to arriving international passengers for the following 
reasons: (1) the Airport is an international gateway; (2) 
international passengers arriving at the Airport possess a 
higher than average amount of luggage necessitating the use 
of a luggage cart; (3) arriving international passengers do not 
usually have the correct type and amount of currency to rent 
a cart; and, (4) U.S. Customs officials have repeatedly 
refused to permit a Currency exchange service inside the 
Customs area. 

According to Ms. Maitland, under the existing agreement, 
Smarte Carte, Inc. is paid $0.70 per cart each time a 
passenger uses a free cart in the Customs area. Ms. 
Maitland advises that there currently is no maximum 
amount payable to Smarte Carte, Inc. for the free carts in 
the Customs area. Under the proposed Agreement, Smarte 
Carte, Inc. will be paid a flat annual fee for providing free 
carts in the Customs area rather than a per cart per use fee 
as is currently done. The average annual fee for providing 
free carts in Customs is $2,474,200 ($12,371,000 over 5 
years). The cost of providing free luggage carts in the 
Customs Program increases over the life of the proposed 
Agreement, as shown in Attachment III, provided by the 
Airport. Also, as shown in Attachment III, the cost of the 
Customs Program continues to increase over the five, one- 
year Agreement extension options. The table below 
summarizes the comparison of the Customs Program costs. 

Existing Agreement Proposed Agreement 

Customs Program $0.70 per cart per use Average Annual Fee *: 

November 1, 2000- $2,474,200 

October 31, 2001 Net 
Actuals: $981,252 

* See Attachment III for the actual annual fee for each year of the 
proposed Agreement. 

Ms. Maitland advises that moving to a flat annual fee for the 
free carts versus a per cart per use charge requires Smarte 
Carte, Inc. to bear the burden of increased operational costs 
over the life of the Agreement, thus, the Airport precludes 
future attempts to re-negotiate the fee amounts for the free 
carts in Customs by Smarte Carte, Inc. However, the Budget 
Analyst notes that the Airport will be paying $1,492,948 
more than is currently paid for the Customs Program. On 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

44 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

page six of Attachment II, Ms. Maitland advises that the 
annual fee for providing free carts in the Customs Program 
includes Smarte Carte, Inc.'s cost of equipping the self- 
service luggage carts with brakes as well as the increased 
labor cost under the Citj^'s Minimum Compensation 
Ordinance 3 . 

3. Ms. Maitland reports that the Rental Car Facility 
Program was instituted upon the opening of the Rental Car 
Facility on McDonnell Road in January of 1999. Currently, 
passengers are bussed from the Airport terminals to the 
Rental Car Facility and vice versa. According to Ms. 
Maitland, the Airport received numerous complaints that 
passengers had to rent a cart twice, once at the terminals 
and again at the Rental Car Facility. The AirTrain will 
accommodate luggage carts, however, in the meantime, the 
Airport perceived providing luggage carts for free at the 
Rental Car Facility as a critical service for passengers going 
to and from the Rental Car Facility. The Airport currently 
pays a flat annual fee of $487,000, or $40,583 per month for 
the free luggage carts at the Rental Car Facility. Upon 
commencement of AirTrain, which is estimated to be August 
10, 2002, this service will cease and the Airport will no 
longer pay for free carts at the Rental Car Facility unless the 
AirTrain system fails (see Comment No. 5). A comparison of 
the existing agreement with the proposed Agreement for the 
provision of free carts under the Rental Car Facility Program 
is as follows: 

Existing Agreement Proposed Agreement 

Rental Car Facility $487,000 per year $480,000 per year *: 

Program 

* The payment for this service terminates when AirTrain is 
operational. 



3 Ms. Maitland advises that the Minimum Compensation Ordinance requires contractors with the 
City and County of San Francisco to pay minimum gross hourly compensation of S10.00 an hour 
beginning January 1, 2002, plus 2.5% annual increases for each of the next three years. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

45 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



4. Ms. Maitland advises that currently the Airport is paying 
Smarte Carte, Inc. approximately $122,354 per month 4 for 
the free luggage carts in the Customs Area and at the Rental 
Car Facility. 

5. Because the AirTrain has not previously existed at the 
Airport, the AirTrain Failure Contingency Program is a new 
component of the Self-Service Luggage Cart Agreement. Ms. 
Maitland advises that after consulting the AirTrain Project 
Manager, she budgeted an expense of 14 days per year at 
$500 per day or $7,000 per year for the operation of the 
AirTrain Failure Contingency Plan. Therefore, the total 
estimated cost of the AirTrain Failure Contingency Plan over 
the five-year term is estimated to be $35,000. However, even 
if the AirTrain system failed 14 days per year, the costs of 
providing free luggage carts when the AirTrain fails is less 
than continuing to provide free luggage carts at the Rental 
Car Facility at an annual cost of $480,000. 

6. As noted above, the subject Agreement is for a five year 
period for a gross "not to exceed" amount of $12,886,000 for 
the free cart services in the "Customs Program", "Rental Car 
Facility Program" and the "AirTrain Failure Contingency 
Program". Ms. Maitland advises that the gross figure of 
$12,886,000 includes (a) the total Customs Program 
estimated cost of $12,371,000; (b) the total Rental Car 
Facility cost of $480,000; and, (c) the total estimated cost of 
the AirTrain Failure Contingency Plan over the five-year 
term is estimated to be $35,000. However, Smarte Carte, 
Inc. must pay the Airport a minimum of $2,250,000 in rent 
for the five-year term of the subject Agreement. Therefore, 
the net "not to exceed" amount for the five-year Agreement is 
$10,636,000. Ms. Maitland advises that if the subject 
Agreement is approved, any one-year contract extensions 
would be authorized by the Airport Commission, without 
subsequent Board of Supervisors approval. Attachment III, 
provided by the Airport, indicates the estimated costs and 
rent payments for subject Agreement over a ten-year period, 
including the five, one-year Agreement extensions. 



4 Ms. Maitland advises that this monthly figure was derived by taking a 12-month average of 
luggage carts used in Customs, less the 16.7% of gross revenue payable as rent to the Airport or 
$81,771, plus the monthly Rental Car Facility fee of $40,583. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

46 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



7. According to Ms. Maitland, the Airport Commission 
awarded the subject Agreement to Smarte Carte, Inc. based 
on a three-member panel's determination via written 
proposal and practical demonstration, that Smarte Carte, 
Inc. offered the best overall program. Ms. Maitland advises 
that proposals were received from the following three firms 
(1) Smarte Carte, Inc.; (2) Airport Carts, LLC; and (3) Top 
Cart, LLC. However, Ms. Maitland advises that Top Cart, 
LLC's proposal was rejected prior to evaluation for failure to 
meet the Minimum Qualification Requirements 5 . As shown 
in Attachment IV, Smarte Carte received a total of 83.5 
points versus 70.2 points for Airport Carts, LLC. 

Attachment IV, provided by the Airport, is a summary of the 
panel members' evaluation of the written proposals and the 
practical demonstrations from Smarte Carte, Inc. and 
Airport Carts, LLC. The three panelists, all of whom are 
Airport employees, were the Assistant Deputy Director Duty 
Manager, the AirTrain Manager and the Principal Property 
Manager. 

The Minimum Annual Guarantee payable to the Airport, as 
proposed by the other qualified bidder, Airport Carts LLC, 
was $400,000 or $50,000 less than Smarte Carte. 

The net not to exceed amount which would have been 
payable by the Airport to Airport Carts LLC for the first five 
years would have been $3,355,000 which is $7,281,000 or 
68.5 percent less than the amount payable by the Airport to 
Smarte Carte. The Airport attributes this significant 
difference to the fact that Smarte Carte is to provide 380 
employee hours per day compared to 132.5 employee hours 
per day proposed by Airport Carts LLC. The Airport 
emphasizes that the award of this leas? agreement is based 
on a request for proposal process to determine who will 
provide the best overall program services and was not based 
on a low bid process. 



5 Top Cart LLC proposed as Top Cart SFO. a limited liability company that was formed on July 20, 
2001. Pursuant to the RFP requirements, "Proposers will not be permitted to enter into the 
Agreement or perform the Services through a newly-formed entity, including a corporation or limited 
liability company (except that parties may joint venture provided that they satisfy the Minimum 
Qualification Requirements. The parties to the Agreement must be the same person or entity(ies) 
which proposes and satisfies the Minimum Qualification Requirements." 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

47 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

8. Ms. Maitland advises that the costs of the subject 
Agreement were included in the Airport's FY 2001-2002 
budget. 

9. Approval of the proposed Agreement is a policy matter for 
the Board of Supervisors because (a) the percentage rent 
payable to the Airport for the Self-Service Luggage Cart 
Rental Program decreases from 16.7 percent to 15 percent; 
(b) the Airport can exercise up to five, one-year extensions 
without subsequent Board of Supervisors approval; and, (c) 
the annual cost of providing free luggage carts under the 
Customs Program increases over the five-year period of the 
subject Agreement and continues to increase over the five, 
one-year Agreement extensions options. Also, the net, not to 
exceed amount payable by the Airport to Smarte Carte is 
$7,281,000 more than the cost would be under the Airport 
Carts, LLC proposal. 

Recommendation: Continue the proposed resolution to the Call of the Chair. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

48 



Attachment I 
?ape I of T~ 



EXHIBIT A 
PREx\HSES 



SERIAL 


CMU 
# 


TERMINAL LOCATION 


3622 


C20 


Bridoewav b/w North & Old Central Terminal 




3613 


N01 


Lower level, carousel #1 5. American Airlines 


4341 


N02 


Lower level, b/w carousels #1 1 & #14, American Airiines 


4338 


N03 


Lower level, b/w carousels #10 & #1 1 , American Airiines 


4334 


N04 


Lower level, b/w carousels #5 & #6, United Airlines 


3610 


N04A 


Lower level, b/w carousels #4 & #5, United Airlines 


3548 


N05 


Lower level, b/w carousels #3 & #4, United Airlines by 

others 


4311 


N06 


Lower level, b/w carousels #3 & #4, United Airlines 


4308 


N07 


Lower level, b/w carousels #3 & #4, United Airlines 


4304 


N08 


Lower level, b/w carousels #2 & #3, United Airlines 


4300 


N09 


Lower level, b/w carousels #1 & #2. United Airlines 


4301 


N010 


Lower level, carousel #1 behind telephones. United Airlines 


4309 


N10 


Lower level, curbside, American Airlines 


4292 


N11 


Lower level, curbside, door #6, United Airlines 


4291 


N12 


Lower level, curbside, door #4, United Airiines 


3518 


N13 


Lower level, curbside, door #2. United Airlines 


4307 


N21 


UDDer level, check-in counter, American Airlines 


4310 


N22 


UoDer level, check-in counter b/w restrooms, UA & American 


4297 


N23 


UDDer level, check-in counter United Airiines 


4296 


N24 


UDoer level, elevators, United check Doint 


4340 


N25 


UDDer level, elevators, United check Doint 


4333 


N30 


UoDer level, curbside, American Airiines 


3712 


N31 


UDDer level, curbside, door #9, United Airlines by others 


4277 


N32 


UDDer level, curbside, between door #6 & #7 


4313 


N33 


UDDer level, curbside. door #3. United Airlines 


4316 


N41 


Boardina Area E. Gate 60. American Airlines 


4298 


N42 


Boardina Area E. Gate 62. American Airlines 


4204 


N43 


Boarding Area F, rotunda, near restrooms. United Airlines 


4337 


N44 


Boardina Area F, Gate 83. United Airiines 


4336 


N45 


Boarding Area F, Gate 89. United Airlines 


4274 


N70 


UDDer level. Center Island, in front of American Airiines 


4275 


N71 


UDDer level. Center Island, in front of United Airlines 


4302 


I S01 


Lower level, baocace claim, in front of elevators. US Airl 


4315 


i S02 


Lower level, baccace claim. Air Canada I 


4216 


S03 


Lower level, baccace claim. Southwest Airlines 


4332 


S04 


Lower level, carousel #6, Continental Airlines 


4212 


SOS 


Lower level, carousel #7. Continental Airlines 


4211 


S06 


Lower level, carouse! #9. America West Airlines 


3711 


S07 


Lower level, carousel #13. Alaska Airlines bv others 


4312 


S08 


Lower level, carousel #16. Delta Airlines 


4214 


S09 


Lower level, carousel #17. Delta Airiines 


4314 


S010 


Lower level, in front of elevator. Delta Airlines 


4083 


S10 


Lower level, curosice. US Air 



E.xhibit A - Pase 1 



Luggage Can Program Lease and Operating Agreement 



49 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 3 



4443 


S11 


Lower level, curbside. Continental Airlines I 


3616 


S12 


Lower level, curbside, American Trans Air 


4289 


S13 


Lower level, curbside, Delta Airlines 


4303 


S31 


UDper level, curbside, US Air 


3713 


S32 


UDDer level, curbside. Southwest Airlines by others 


4295 


S33 


UDoer level, curbside. b/w America Trans Air & Continental 


3629 


S34 


Upper level, curbside, b/w TWA & America West Airlines 


4293 


S35 


Upper level, curbside, Alaska Airlines 


4213 


S36 


UDDer level, curbside, Delta Airlines 


4294 


S40 


Boarding Area A. Gate 7, US Air 


4299 


S41 


Boarding Area A, entrance to Gates 8-16. US Air 


4317 


S42 


Boarding Area B, Gate 24, TWA 


4318 


S43 


Boarding Area B, entrance to Gates 32-36, TWA 


3609 


S44 


Boarding Area B, near Gate 23, TWA 


4290 


S70 


Upper level, Center Island, in front of Southwest Airlines 


4273 


S71 


Upper level, Center Island, in front of TWA 



4424 


A61 


Domestic Garage Section A Level 1 


4075 


A62 


Domestic Garage Section A Level 2 


4284 


A63 


Domestic Garage Section A Level 3 


4062 


B61 


Domestic Garage Section B Level 1 


4466 


B62 


Domestic Garage Section B Level 2 


4276 


B63 


Domestic Garage Section B Level 3 


5334 


C61 


Domestic Garage Section C Level 1 


4279 


C62 


Domestic Garage Section C Level 2 


4281 


C63 


Domestic Garage Section C Level 3 


4280 


C65 


Domestic Garage Section C Level 5 


4283 


D61 


Domestic Garaoe Section D Level 1 


4288 


D62 


Domestic Garage Section D Level 2 


4287 


D63 


Domestic Garage Section D Level 3 


4286 


D65 


Domestic Garage Section D Level 5 


4797 


E61 


Domestic Garage Section E Level 1 


5336 


E62 


Domestic Garage Section E Level 2 


4787 


E53 


Domestic Garage Section E Level 3 


4285 


F61 


Domestic Garaae Section F Level 1 


4080 


F62 


Domestic Garaae Section F Level 2 


4069 


F63 


Domestic Garage Section F Level 3 


4077 


F54 


Domestic Garaae Section F Level 4 


4278 


F55 


Domestic Garage Section F Level 5 


5354 


I AA-61 


A aaraae West end Level 1 


5353 


I AA-62 


A garage West end Level 2 


5163 


I AA-63 


A garaae West end Level 3 


5350 


I AA-64 


A garage West end Level 4 


5359 


I AA-65 


A aaraae West end Level 5 


4726 


I AA-66 


A garaae West end Level 6 


5352 


I AA-67 


A caraae West end Level 7 


3620 


I AA-68 


A aaraae West end Level 8 


5356 


I AB-61 


A aaraae Middle Level 1 


5358 


I AB-62 


A aaraae Middle Level 2 


5360 


I AB-63 


A garage Middle Level 3 


5355 


I AB-64 


A aaraae Middle Level 4 


5357 


I AB-65 


A aaraae Middle Level 5 


5351 


I AB-66 


A aaraae Middle Level 6 



Exhibit A - Paae 2 



Luggage Can Program Lease and Operating Agreement 



50 



Attachment I 
Page 3 or 3 



4794 | AB-67 1 A garaae Middle Level 7 j 


5329 | AB-68 | A garage Middle Level 8 1 




4064 | GB-61 | G garage Level 1 1 


3619 | GB-62 I G garage Level 2 


4305 I GB-63 I G Garaae Level 3 


4067 | GB-64 | G garage Level 4 


3615 | G8-65 I G caraae Level 5 


3611 | GB-66 | G garaqe Level 6 


5328 | GB-67 I G caraae Level 7 


4282 | GB-58 I G garage Level 8 1 




4306 1T-01 Baacaae Claim room A riqht side of the entrance 


3623 IT-02 Baggage Ciaim room A facing the entrance 


3617 IT-03 Bagcage Claim room G riaht side of the entrance 


3625 IT-04 Baagage Claim room G facing the entrance 


5339 IT-10 Baggaae cjrbside. arrivallevel 


5335 IT-11 Baaaaae curDside. arrival level 


5330 IT-12 Baagaae curbside. arrival level 


5331 1T-13 Baggage curbside. arrival level 


5340 IT-14 I Bagaage curbside, arrival level 


5338 IT-15 Baggage curbside. arrival level 


5343 IT-30 Ticketing Curbside, deoarture level 


5332 IT-31 Ticketing Curbside, deoarture level 


5344 lT-32 Ticketing Curbside, deoarture level 


5345 IT-33 Ticketing Curbside, deoarture level 


5348 IT-34 Ticketing Curbside, deoarture level 


5349 IT-35 Ticketing Curbside, deoarture level 


5347 IT-36 Ticketing Curbside, deoarture level 


5342 IT-37 Ticketing Curbside, deoarture level 


5346 IT-38 Ticketing Island, deoarture level 


5341 IT-39 Ticketing Island, deoarture level 


5333 IT-51 Ticketing "G" side facing elevators 


3549 IT-52 Ticketing "G" side outside Amlock 


3710 IT-70 Courtyard A 


5337 IT-71 Courtvard G 




51020 | C11C I Customs -connecting fliaht exit 


99221 IT16A | Customs "A" - Immiaration Counters 


98221 | IT17G I Custcns "G" - Immiaration Counters 



Exhibit A - Page 3 
Luggage Can Program Lease and Operating Agreement 51 



Date: 
To: 
From: 
Re: 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 6 

January 3, 2002 

Maureen Singleton, Budget Analyst 

Patty Maitland, Senior Principal Property Manager 

Award of Luggage Cart Lease and Operating Agreement to Smarte Carte, 
Inc. 



This responds to your request for information regarding the San Francisco International 
Airport's Luggage Cart Lease and Operating Agreement. 

Current Self-Service Cart Concession Contract. Major Lease Terms Summary 



Premises: 

Term: 

Commencement: 

Expiration: 

Option: 

Use & Operation: 



Self-service luggage cart system, automatic dispensing "vending 
units" and carts available to the public throughout the North, 
South and International Terminal Building Complex, including 
connecting concourses, piers, and boarding areas. 

Five years 

July, 1991 

July, 2001 ' 

Resolution 96-0132, adopted May 21, 1996, exercising option 

period. 

One five-year period exercisable at the sole discretion of the 
Commission. 

Uses Permitted : Exclusive rental of luggage carts by Operator 
throughout Terminal Building Complex, garage and terminal 
roadway sidewalks. At Commission's discretion, carts may be 
provided free of charge in Customs area. Operator installs, 
services and maintains cart in quantities and locations approved 
by Director. 

Operation : Operator to install and operate minimum 88 vending 
units Airport-wide, including Customs area together with 
minimum 2,200 carts. Operator leases vending units to Airport 
in accordance with §6.01 of the Agreement. 



1 The Airport Commission determined that it was inadvisable to commence a new luggage 
cart operating system, and one that included braking carts, in the midst of the peak traveling 
season and authorized a month-to-month hold-over of the existing agreement in anticipation 
of a Commencement Date for the new Agreement no later than April 1, 2002. 



52 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 6 



Rental Payment: 



Maintenance & 
Repairs: 

Resolution: 

Lease Modifications 



All vending unit counters to be set to zero at installation. Carts 
provided in Customs to be distributed through vending units. 

As required by Director, Operator to be present in Customs area 
during scheduled arrival time(s) of each and every International 
flight to assist passengers and make change. 

Luggage carts and vending units to be operational 24 hours 
daily, seven days per week. 

Fee : 

(a) Originally, the Operator paid Airport an annual consideration 
consisting of a MAG of $225,000 or 15% of gross revenue 
(see Modification #2 below). 

(b) Airport pays Operator SlO.OO/month for each vending unit. 

(c) Airport pays Operator SO. 70 per cart for each cart used with 
the Free Cart in Customs program. 

(d) Airport pays Operator annual flat fee of 5487,000 to provide 
free carts at the Rental Car Facility. 

Operator agrees to maintain and repair any damages caused by 
its Operation. Operator responsible for maintaining all luggage 
carts and vending units in good operating condition. 

No. 91-0021 

Modification #1, Resolution No. 94-0054, May 1, 1994 - 
Redefined gross revenues for the purpose of funding the Free 
Cart in Customs Program. 

Modification #2, Resolution No. 96-0132, May 21, 1996 - 
Increased percentage of gross revenues to be paid as rent to *he 
Airport from 15% to 16.7%. Exercised five-year option period. 

Modification #3, Resolution No. 99-01 16, April 20, 1999 - 
Established RAC Free Cart Program at a rate of S.70 per rental 
car transaction. 

Modification #4, Resolution No. 00-0295, August 15, 200C - 
Reduced rate paid to Smarte Carte for RAC Free Cart Program 
to annual flat fee of $487,000 annually. 



53 



Attachment II 
Page 3 of 6 



Current Operations 

Historically, the Airport has paid the Operator for the Free Cart Programs. The Customs 
Program provides free carts to arriving international passengers for the following 
reasons: 1.) SFO is an international gateway, 2.) international passengers arriving at 
SFO possess a higher than average amount of luggage necessitating the use of a luggage 
cart, 3.) arriving international passengers do not usually have the correct type and amount 
of currency to rent a cart, 4.) U.S. Customs officials have repeatedly refused to permit a 
currency exchange service inside the Customs area. 

Under the old agreement, the Airport paid the Operator $.70 per cart used in the Customs 
Program, which amount was included in the "Gross Revenue" calculation of the 
agreement on which the Operator paid rent. Because the U.S. Customs area is a secured 
and closed area, the carts were brought in through a guide-way that contained a counter 
embedded in the floor. The wheels of the carts passed over the counter and registered the 
number of carts brought into the Customs area. The only way a cart would exit the 
secured area was by passenger use. Each month, a representative of the Operator, and a 
member of the Airport's accounting staff, would jointly read the counter for that 
accounting period's billing. This method of counting the luggage carts via the guide-way 
presented significant operational issues for the Airport, the Customs officials, and the 
Operator. The Airport determined that requiring the successful Proposer to commit to 
annual fees would resolve this operational issue and also place the burden of increased 
operational costs over the life of the Agreement on the Proposer, thus, precluding any 
future attempts by the Operator to renegotiate the fee amounts. 

The RAC Program was instituted upon the opening of the Rental Car Facility on 
McDonnell Road. Passengers are bussed from the terminals to the RAC and vice versa. 
The Airport received numerous complaints that passengers had to rent a cart twice, once 
at the terminals and again at the RAC, when using the rental car buses. Unlike the buses, 
the AirTrain will accommodate luggage carts; in the meantime, the Airport perceived this 
as a critical service for passengers going to and from the RAC. Upon commencement of 
AirTrain, this service will cease. 2 

The RAC Program was initially tied to the number of car rental transactions per month. 
However, after an audit of the usage showed the Airport was overpaying for this service, 
the $.70 per rental car transaction fee was renegotiated to a flat annual fee of $487,000 
and the $138,000 in overpayments under the transaction methodology was credited back 
to the Airport. 



2 The Airport anticipates the Commencement of the proposed Agreement on April 1, 2002. 
Per the Agreement: "To the extent the RAC Program operates less than the first full Lease Year, then 
the Service Fee for the RAC Program for such Lease Year shall be prorated, based on a 360-day year." As 
the AirTrain will go on-line on August 10, 2002, the Airport will pay only 131 days of the RAC Program 
Fee(S174,667). 



54 



Attachment II 
Page 4 of 6 



Finally, the AirTrain Failure Contingency Program is a contingency plan in the event 
the AirTrain during its regular operation fails, and the Airport must bus passengers to the 
RAC. The AirTrain Failure Contingency Program has not previously existed. 



Historical Financial Data 

The attached spreadsheets (which were included as source documents in the F<FP) show 
the overall financial reporting for the luggage cart concession from 1996 through March 
2001. 



Proposed Lease and Operating Agreement 

The proposed Luggage Cart Lease and Operating Agreement (Agreement) comprises two 
major parts: (1) the operation of the luggage cart rental program as a concession, making 
the Carts available for rent at S2 per cart for the traveling public, and paying to the 
Airport concession rent; and (2) the provision to the Airport, for a fee, the Customs 
Program, the RAC Program, and the AirTrain Failure Contingency Program (the 
"Services") as described below. Under the proposed Agreement, Smarte Carte, Inc. 
would provide (a) the operation of a fleet of not less than 5,500 luggage carts, equipped 
with brakes 3 , (b) the installation, maintenance, and repair, of the luggage carts, (c) the 
installation, maintenance, and repair of luggage cart vending units, which automatically 
dispense luggage carts to the public; (d) the operation of the Luggage Cart Program 
including the collection and relocation of luggage carts; and (e) the provision of the 
Services. Exhibit A of the Agreement is a list of current rental cart locations at the 
Airport Terminal Complex. 

SERVICES: 

(1) Customs Program . Smarte Carte, Inc. must provide no less than two 
thousand (2,000) luggage carts in the U.S. Customs area of the 
International Terminal. The luggage carts will continue to be available 
without a rental charge in the Customs area 

(2) RAC Program . Smarte Carte, Inc. must provide no less than five hundred 
(500) luggage carts at the Rental Car Facility until AirTrain is operational 
and open to the public for transport to the Rental Car Facility. The luggage 
carts will continue to be available without a rental charge in these areas 

(3) AirTrain Failure Contingency Plan . Smarte Carte, Inc. must provide no 
less than five hundred (500) luggage carts at the Rental Car Facility upon 



3 The terms of the proposed Agreement require Smarte Carte to equip the luggage carts with 
brakes. Existing self-service luggage carts do not have brakes. Smarte Carte will either 
equip their existing fleet of luggage carts with breaks or manufacture new carts with brakes 
in order to meet the terms of the Agreement. 



55 



Attachment II 
Page 5 of 6 



notification from the Airport that there is or may be an AirTrain failure, 
and buses must be used to transport passengers from the Terminal 
Building Complex to the Rental Car Facility. Smarte Carte, Inc. must 
provide luggage carts in the Rental Car Facility free of charge until the 
AirTrain service resumes or as otherwise directed by Airport Director. 



Request for Proposal Process and Respondents 

The Airport Commission awarded the Agreement to Smarte Carte Inc., based on a three- 
member panel's determination via written proposal and practical demonstration that 
Smarte Carte offered the best overall program and is responsive and responsible. 
Proposals were received from the three firms listed below. However, Top Cart, LLC's 
proposal was rejected prior to evaluation for failure to meet the Minimum Qualification 
Requirements. 4 

Smarte Carte, Inc. 

Airport Carts, LLC. 

Top Cart, LLC 

Attached is a summary of the panel members' evaluation of the written proposals and the 
practical demonstrations. Please note that the scores of the panel members are a matter of 
public record, however, the evaluating panel members are anonymous (anonymity of 
panel members safeguards against undue influence being brought to bear on the 
evaluation process). 

The Request for Proposal (RFP) did not require a Proposer to submit its methodology as 
to how the financial component was derived, however, Smarte Carte has provided the 
Airport with additional information as set forth in the following section. As the RFP 
process is a competitive one, and the financial component is one of the areas evaluated, 
the Proposer bears the risk of the cost estimation. The Minimum Qualification 
Requirements ensure that a Proposer is sufficiently sophisticated to accurately project its 
future financial requirements. 



Delta Between the Existing and Proposed Agreement Amounts 

MAG and Percent of Gross Revenue Delta 

The function of a MAG is to ensure a certain rent threshold to the Airport; 
the percentage of gross revenue allows for the Airport to participate in periods of 



4 Top Cart LLC proposed as Top Cart SFO, a limited liability company that was formed on 
July 20, 2001. Pursuant to the RFP requirements, "Proposers will not be permitted to enter 
into the Agreement or perform the Services through a newly-formed entity, including a 
corporation or limited liability company (except that parties may joint venture provided that 
they satisfy the Minimum Qualification Requirements. The parties to the Agreement must 
be the same person or entity(ies) which proposes and satisfies the Minimum Qualification 
Requirements." 



56 



Attachment II 
ir'age 6 of 6 



higher rental activity. The MAG proposed by Smarte Carte is double the existing 
MAG. This high MAG places the risk of low revenues (i.e. low cart rentals) on 
the Operator and offsets the 1.7% reduction in the percentage of gross revenue. 



Program Services Fee Delta 

In general, Smarte Carte cites the following two items as being primary 
factors in determining its fee proposal: 

Smarte Carte has stated that because the proposed Agreement triggers the 
Minimum Compensation Ordinance (MCO) 5 , their labor costs are significantly 
increased over the term of the Agreement. Smarte Carte has given the Airport an 
unofficial estimate of approximately SIM for the first Lease Year in increased 
payroll costs. This estimate is based on a work force of between 100 and 120 cart 
associates, currently paid on average at S.75 over the federal minimum wage, 
working three 8-hour shifts. 

Additionally, Smarte Carte is required to provide carts with a braking 
mechanism in order to satisfy the specifications of the proposed Agreement. 
Either retro-fitting existing equipment, or manufacturing new carts to meet this 
specification represents a significant capital investment by the Operator not 
previously required by the old Agreement. 



Utilities and Janitorial Services 

In accordance with §8.2 Utility Costs of the Agreement, Smarte Carte shall pay the whole 
cost of the utility services required to perform under the Agreement. Although the 
Proposers were not required to provide their operating budget in their responses, I 
requested that Smarte Carte provide their utility cost projections, however, Smarte Carte 
has not finalized its budget. Additionally, janitorial services are not broken out as a line 
item of their budget as their employees perform this function as a part of their regular 
duties. The Operator will most likely be subcontracting their janitorial services out in 
order to meet the M/WBE goals required in the Agreement. 



X:\CDM\WRKFILES\PMAITLAN\CanRFPVbrdofsupvrlsimerno.doc 



°MCO requires contractors with the City and County of San Francisco to pay minimum gross 
hourly compensation of S10.00 an hour beginning January 1. 2002, plus 2.5% annual 
increases for each of the next three years. 



57 



;W. 02 '21 02 09:23 



CONCESSION DEV 4 HGXT 





It If 


9 g 


Isiii 


i "S £ 1 fr » 3 

""•£ c. = = q 
3olH- 
- S g s, =• 






.-. ."■»"' !° 


W i» US 


n 




_3 

i 

5 


1*1 

I'll 

1 - 


a 3 

= 5: 


-, =- e z; =" 
§11. If 


bJ 

0' 

• . 1 
5 ■• 


.00 — 


fill 

■"fS-io 


5 

n 

B 


= 


^ 


S? 


£ § 


S 5 s 


"C 




• '.." .«=f . 


"\ .' ' • . ~ 9 




* 


■ 


■ 1 




3 2, 


5 


? 




: .t.. ' r ' 




s 




ft«Jg 


— _, _ 


=>- — v. 


o — w* 


T| «« 


O. -B •» 


— — • v» 










n Z± |g 


e A 


5 Sf ** 




O C ■o. 






s 




JSVi 

5- = - 1 - 


i 3 " 

c - 


6 2.-° 


Ms 

3- 3 .*■* 




s 11 
|i 

i 

n 


i 1 1! • • 




n 
ft 

c 




= 

1 s-3 

£• 3 

h 


t» •a 

a 


c 


3 

13 


8 =| 


=> a 

S- c 

t\ m 

CL 



i 


|f s ' 

1 £ " 

s g - 




H 






a 


O 


i. 
2. 


T3 


e. 






rs 




i 

=1 


5 


i 


a 


1 


II 








sa 










s 


B 




n 




*< 










Ok 






= 




















=3 

EL 






2=5 

2 *• 

e 5 


a. -n f 


c — i to 
5- < J* 1 

■* 2 B 

±. r. .• 


Sg 

£■ 0, 
&<5 

C 
O 

1 

"3 

a 



c 




5>)H 

a E ,01 




3 




If 

It I 

5* rt 
- °> 


"1 
| 

O 
a 


2. 

O 

B 


s => 

E n 

_ rr 

is 

Si 


5 


S' = => 

I - 

if 2 
if s 


> 




= 








C_ 




■< 
















































2. 


















•♦ 






















Q 




C _j M 




t T W 


" — > &* 


-3 <»* 


N vi 


5- S S 

O 3 




%. 






If" 


f }1 


5' S' ►"• 
3 _&. 


»3 

f 1 


a » 








& 




= "0 

f3 


| 


1 


Ifs 


2.1" 


s 


0. a 





rs 




1" 





cn 


if 


c- 

0. 




1! s 


1 






g 
I 


O 



*<* 

I 


S S" 

"* i 

c 

2. 


1 




2. 








C 




















b 






_2. 


^< 




S 1 








T H ** 





a. ■*] *^> 


=. — J V* 


_ w 


N <^« 


jHt" 








2 3- 


f f 3 

« "3 


5 if 


5 S". w 

a 3 S 
s. — c 


11 


a <=> 

c 


I 1.1 

c- si 2 








| 5"S 


2 


& 


S-fS 


S" Q. 


2 


c- 0' c 








L" 


2 


2. 


2. = 


1-? 


* 


S. 5 








ii 


9 


^ 

3 


=. r 


c 
































5 E 


Q 






2 




c S 


: i 










ST 
















| 


O 





2. 


7 
c 




| 


'l 
1 






5 






d 


** 




6 


i 






= — 1 V* 


_ _ 


b ^, H 


-1 H •» 


_ ^, 


^ ^ 


;> — 1 h* 








B" ^ JO 

C 1 = C5 


O -3 


5. 2' r* 

S" = .° 




|1 


3 = 

c 










S 3-g 


2 


1 


Z 5" ■£ 

Is 


2.1" 


- 


||- 3 

1 5 : 


H 











SI 


i 2 






1 2 : 


> 






3 C 


^T 


J, 


F 




c. ~ 










c 


s 
| 


= 


a 

c 




a 3" 
3 2. 





-Attachment II 
Faj?e 1 of 2 



C^3 













3 








r^ 









g 












> 










S. 


S3 




n 


a 




13 


■3 


l/> 




O 


rr> 


^ 


B 


2 


CN 



>d ■ 2002 0? :34 



CONCESSION D-V 



|1 |& = £=. 

Hfi I J 

I R - 2.? 

> ™ a: 2 - 

s 2? 5 ' 3 
5 3 g 3 

5" *• 


2 s f 3 -T 2 5. "3 1 5' 5 

2 s- c 2 " a => Z^2 3 5 - 
o ; j,c J £ -r; c- * =/■ a. ~ 

? f g ? i Slaofr 

§f 8 S3 S§«S|"| 

s"= =- - ■§ ~"g e=.»Sia 

<i * <« = o 9-S ?5 =■ 

• ■ a o s a. 2 ? 's £ n ° 
- ?= - § 8 2. & 
;1 S ? a 

* -° 8 2, 


C« > t/J 

?'" ff H r 2'^8 
g 1 i? fit i 1- 

£ IS 4§5 = I: 2 

3 §r >? 1 ""5 

~ ™ S — 3 ^ c 

•» _ — • 3 » 
— » *< 3" 

1 




7 — : ^ 

Sou 
'"!• c ■" 

=1 S "•=> 

** — . o 

|| 

= tr 

if £ 


53 -r — c. T v» 
? -j w< 2. o f. 

"3 1- = 

o = 

I § 

1 


23^ « <^ 3<= 5 ? ." 

5 3 a 2/«a §■ § e a 

Z=° 5 3 £ '=: = 

5 i § if S g§ = 

11 i II 

;° e S = 

5 =" u c ~ 
*S "o =- = 
2- 5. 5 c = 
a. a _ o ~ 

I 2 " « I 2 " 


o 
■p. 

> 


= d - -j 

1 = .= 

<=- 5" 5 

2. 5 

2. 

3 


— -rj — C -Tl fc» 

5 5"' e ^ .= 
s a - 5 g 

a 1. 

— m 

O =3 

c ^ 

>* c 

3 


g * w <" ^ go c 5' r" 

111 ll £ |i| 

fa a f=. 

» •£ 2. « 'C. 

c ~ c 

2- a a- 
So. a 

£ o. 


•a 
o 

| 


rn = § 
< o ^r 
o o 

l| 

S 3 
— c- 


» " n £•**£. 

I 1 

— m 
— » *< 

1 1 


»f° It i s§ s 

i » f I ^ 

o. c * c c 

g-s. ^ s-a. 
I 1 1 I 1 




•9 

3 
c 

2 

5| 


cr ■* *" 
a < Z" 

Ill 

|f s 

f | 

c 

i 


SB "R — C "55 <* 

1 = 3 g. | g 

s e 5 S-g 

1 1 

3 = 

i i 


c <' .- =• g a ° 3 ?' P 

■ 3 <s 3" -a g- S = o 
S. = o 53 g H.-o 

ll' 8 If S |l § 

■ 2. o. S -■ 

e ■ c 
1 1 1 

It - 

3 = 


- 

c 

2 


? «jl *• 

i f 

B r- 

= 2. 


— — — G. T. V» 

if* ?n 

° 7 2 5 

a e> 
§ 2. 

— =1 

3 

1 I 
I 


; s p •»< -• i» « o 2 •"' oj 
a c j o g 2 | « "so 
3 5 ^> ="-3 ~ ^- = S 

• — c =9 g, • = ^ "<= 
5 =• S s- o. = ? r § 

=■ a. c ' r 2. 

o m, o 2 IS. 

if | 1! 

= 2- & |i 


-5 

=1 



\ 

— 
-- 



Attachment III 



ZA 



° > 

8 I 

s & 

S" 1 

a «■* 

o a 

= m 

«-^ O 

^ to 
O 

o 

a 



59 



H-02-2302 03:. 



Attachment IV 
Page 1 of 3 



a 



in 



> 

- 
- 

2 

— 

si 
U 
« 

6X 
C3 
CX 

ex 



-i *- — ^ 

»-J O _ ~ 







2 


















































u 


ea 
























BI 


tf U 


lO 




r-> 









CO 




CO 






U 




CO 




CN 








CN 




CO 






> 


2 — ' 

























< 


< 


























u 












































































St 

— 


ea 

O 


CO 




rn 




rn 




r- 




_ 






u 


u 


"* 




c> 




vd 









— '. 






> 




CN 












CN 




CO 






< 


CO 












































































> 


a 
























m 


-a 


IT) 
















in 












o 




CN 




O 










"o 


1^ 


CN 




CN 




■■" 




r*i 




CO 
































j-3 


< 




















































u 
























> 


« 
























(—, 


u 


iri 
















10 






— 


4J 


<* 




O 
CN 









CN 




IT> 






T> 


C3 


CN 
















CO 






c 


























Cm 


co 
























CO 


C9 
























(N 


O _J 
























J 


t"» 




r» 




r~ 




O 

m 




O 






s 


& 


















































CO 

C- 


< 
























CS 1 


u 
























CO 


ea 
























CN 


u 


























<U 


r~- 




CO 




r~ 









CN 








CN 












CN 




CO 
































U 












































































p 


C3 

En 


OO 






















e 


















































u 


























;/: 


2 


w; 






















ea 


F 


- -J 






















e 




r- 




o 








■et 




CN 




- 

•— 


V 


""■ 




*~~ 




~~ 




CN 




O 




c 


























r- 




< 






















_ 
























■x. 




























S 


u 






















- 

< 


H 


E9 

u 

— 

C3 


rl 




O 









r- 




O 




3 


73 


CN 




CN 




1 ' 




~ 




t*» 







5 
c 


E 

00 






















=i 
















































EL 










dg <-• 








, r 








z 

Ed 
- 






CO 

.2 © 
- r "' 

53 — 

B re 

O S 




O — 

■P = G 

- ») 'p 
><• 00 ra 

tu < 00 




53 

— _C0 

5. 




— 

O CO ^ 




£ £ 





- 

< 


ID 



eg 

u 

CO 


°5 




























80% of Score 
(Average 
Score x .8) 



60 



Attachment IV 
Page 2 of 3 





> 


u 






















< 






















u 


S n> 
























C3 ti 


ro 




r-~ 


rn 


r*l 


m 






m 




U 

> 




ON 




CN 


CO 


CN 


ON 




m 


CN 




< 
























- 


« 






















> 


a 






















m 


O _J 


O 




CN 


r-» 


OO 


ON 




in 






u 


If 






















B- 


< 






































































> 


re 
























u 
























u 


O 




r» 


r- 


O 


o 




in 


CN 




.2 


— 




CN 


- ' 


— 




in 


On 




u 


2 






















(X 


00 






















Bi 
























M 


~ 






















r^j 




wo 




CN 


co 


tn 


OO 




o 
m 






<u 


& 






















re 


< 






















si 


u 






















tfl 


r 






















CN 


u 
























u 

r 


O 




os 


c\ 


o 


o 




o 


©\ 




• — 


• — 




CN 


— 


— 




NO 


On 


V 


u 

to 

a. 


i 




















c 


00 












































&n 


























-> 


to 




















a 


— 














































o 


_ 


C -J 

8 - 1 




















H 

-— 


."2 


OO 




o 

CN 


oo 


o 


VO 




in 


en 


o 


u 


b 




















£ 


re 


< 




















o 

CN 
















































5 


<u 




















£ 

^ 


H 


to 

U 


oo 




CN 


o 


OO 


oo 




in 
in 


00 

oo 


^ 




re 




















tf 




c 




















a 


a. 


oo 




















H 
z 




























m 






^ 


*-. 


,—. 






«: 








J3 
















z 








ca 


o 


Q. 

o 


c 
o 






'? 









g 




o 


^, 


™ 


™ 








E- 

< 






"c3 




CO 





u 

5 


u 
(J 




S 




H 










0"E 


2 








— 


o 


z 






to 




S o 


o 








u 


"5 


GO 

i 






a, 3 

_ D 

2 o 

o c 




E "3 

U o 










5 


cu E- 



5 

C -3 
o _J 
p. 

< 


CN 

in 


re 

u 

u 

re 
00 


00 




























20% of Score 
(Average 
Score x .2) 



ca 

< 


o 


re 

u 

u 
a 
00 


00 


























Total RFP 

Evaluation 

Score 





u 



61 



Attachment IV 
"■fage 3 of 3 



C3 

2 — 
< 


O 


o 

u 

u 

a 
C/5 


O 































U 

2 - 1 
< 1 

u 


in 




o 




70.2 


a 
U 
o 

a 

c/3 


ve 


ve 

00 


o 




in 

oo 












































































80% of Written 

Proposal Average 

Score 


20% of 

Presentation/Interview 

Average Score 


5 

a 

.S o-^ 

3 £. 
& 

U 




Q J 
Z < 

*" ~ 
K 



BJ 



62 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 01-2283 
Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 

Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 
Mayor's Office of Public Finance 

Resolution (1) approving the issuance of not to exceed 
$100,000,000 aggregate principal amount of San 
Francisco Water Revenue Refunding Bonds to be issued 
by the PUC; (2) affirming covenants contained in the 
indenture pursuant to which the Water Revenue 
Refunding Bonds are issued; (3) authorizing the execution 
and delivery of a continuing disclosure certificate; and, (4) 
authorizing the taking of appropriate actions in 
connection with the issuance of the Water Revenue 
Refunding Bonds. 

Not to exceed $100,000,000 

Water Revenue Refunding Bonds 

Proposition B, which was passed by the San Francisco 
electorate in November of 1984, authorized the issuance 
of up to $104,000,000 in Water Revenue Bonds to finance 
the expansion and reconstruction of existing PUC 
facilities. Pursuant to this authorization, the Board of 
Supervisors authorized the PUC to issue up to 
$104,000,000 in Water Revenue Bonds in 1985. In 1987, 
the Board of Supervisors authorized the PUC to issue 
$106,117,011 in Water Revenue Refunding Bonds to 
refund the 1985 Water Revenue Bonds and in 1992, the 
Board of Supervisors authorized the PUC to issue 
$107,180,000 in Water Revenue Refunding Bonds to 
refund the 1987 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds. 

Approval of the proposed resolution would authorize the 
PUC to issue tax-exempt Water Revenue Refunding 
Bonds in an amount not to exceed $100,000,000, in order 
to refund the outstanding amount of $92,105,000 in 1992 
Water Revenue Refunding Bonds. In accordance with 
Section 9.109 of the Charter, the Board of Supervisors is 
authorized to approve the issuance of revenue refunding 
bonds, if such bonds are expected to result in net debt 
service savings to the City on a present value basis. 
According to Ms. Ester Abenojar of the PUC, Water 
Revenue Refunding Bonds are repaid from the net 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

63 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

revenues of the Water Enterprise. According to Ms. 
Michelle Sexton of the City Attorney's Office, these Water 
Revenue Refunding Bonds do not require the City's 
General Fund to repay the bonds. 

According to Ms. Abenojar, the existing 1992 Water 
Revenue Refunding Bonds have interest rates of between 
6 percent and 6.5 percent and were issued with a 23-year 
term, with a final payment date on November 1, 2015. 
The 1992 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds can be called 
from investors beginning on November 1, 2002. According 
to Ms. Abenojar, the interest rates for the subject 
proposed Water Revenue Refunding Bonds are estimated 
to range from 2.3 to 4.5 percent and would have a 13-year 
term with the final payment still on November 1, 2015. 
The current outstanding principal amount of the 1992 
Water Revenue Refunding Bonds is $92,105,000. The 
Attachment, provided by the PUC, is a debt service 
comparison between the 1992 Water Revenue Refunding 
Bonds and the proposed Water Revenue Refunding Bonds. 

As shown in the Attachment, the proposed refinancing of 
the 1992 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds will result in a 
total net present value savings of 6.967 percent of the par 
amount of the 1992 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds or a 
total net present value savings in aggregate debt service 
of $6,417,026, over the remaining 13-year term of the 
bonds. This estimated savings is based on a par amount of 
$92,105,000 at an average annual interest rate of four 
percent for a term of 13 years, according to Ms. Abenojar. 

Comments: 1. Ms. Abenojar reports that the principal that would be 

outstanding on the prior 1992 Water Revenue Refunding 
Bonds will be $92,105,000 on the date the 1992 Water 
Revenue Refunding Bonds are called, which is projected 
to be November 1, 2002. The prior 1992 Water Revenue 
Refunding Bonds have a Debt Service Reserve Fund 
which has a current balance of approximately $4,922,438. 
Those monies from the Debt Service Reserve Fund would 
be released when the 1992 Water Revenue Refunding 
Bonds are defeased. 1 According to Ms. Abenojar, 



1 Defeasance is the term used to describe the termination of all rights and interests of the 
bondholders upon final payment of all debt service, in the manner required by the terms and 
conditions of the bond resolution. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

64 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



approximately $4,488,415 of the $4,922,438 Debt Service 
Reserve Fund would be used to fund a new Debt Service 
Reserve Fund for the proposed refunding bonds. 
According to Ms. Abenojar, the balance of $434,023 
($4,922,438 less $4,488,415) would be allocated to the cost 
of issuance of the Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, which 
is estimated to be $350,000 (see Comment No. 3) and the 
remaining approximately $84,023 ($434,023 less 
$350,000) would be available for capital project costs. 

However, Ms. Abenojar advises, if it is economical, the 
PUC may fund a new Debt Service Reserve Fund by 
obtaining a Surety Policy for the proposed Water Revenue 
Refunding Bonds. The Surety Policy is similar to an 
insurance policy and is used in lieu of a Debt Service 
Reserve Fund. The Surety Policy amount would be equal 
to the Debt Service Reserve Fund requirement of an 
estimated $4,488,415. A Surety Policy is consistent with 
prior Water Enterprise revenue bond issuances. A Surety 
Policy on the Water Revenue Refunding Bonds would cost 
approximately 1.68 percent of the amount of the Debt 
Service Reserve Fund amount of $4,488,415, or $75,405, 
which would be funded from the Debt Service Reserve 
Fund on the 1992 Water Revenue Refunding Bonds. 
According to Mr. Eric Sandler of the PUC, as of the 
writing of this report, the PUC has not yet determined 
whether a cash Debt Service Reserve Fund will be utilized 
or whether a Surety Policy will be obtained and, as of the 
writing of this report, he is uncertain as to the precise 
amount of savings which would result by using a Surety 
Policy instead of a Debt Service Reserve Fund. 

2. Ms. Abenojar notes that the exact amount of the 
proposed Water Revenue Refunding Bond issuance, in an 
amount not to exceed $100,000,000, will not be known 
until the date of the sale of the Water Revenue Refunding 
Bonds, as the interest rate will affect the aggregate 
principal amount needed to fund the refunding escrow 
account, the cost of the bond issuance, bond insurance, 
and either a cash Debt Service Reserve Fund or a Surety 
Policy. 

3. Ms. Abenojar estimates that the bond issuance costs 
would be $350,000. The cost of issuance is to be paid with 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

65 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



bond proceeds and/or the available cash which had funded 
the existing Debt Service Reserve Fund for the 1992 
Water Revenue Refunding Bonds. 

4. This subject resolution also authorizes taking future 
actions in connection with the Water Revenue Refunding 
Bonds, such as obtaining a bond rating for the Water 
Revenue Refunding Bonds, obtaining bond insurance and 
obtaining a Surety Policy if such a policy is in the best 
interest of the City, and approves the form of several 
documents to be executed in connection with this subject 
refunding, including 1) a Continuing Disclosure 
Certificate; and, 2) an Official Statement. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

66 



Attachment 









$95,875,000 










Public Utilities Commission of the City and 


County of San Francisco 






San Francisco Water Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2001 








DEBT SERVICE COMPARISON 






Date 


Total P-I 


DSR 


Net New D/S 


Old Net D/S 


Savings 


FISCAL TOTAL 


6/01/2002 














11/01/2002 


7,161,599.75 


(90,051.12) 


7.071,548.63 


6,828,674.67 


(242,873.96) 




5/01/2003 


1,669.292.00 


(181,004.26) 


1,488,287.74 


2,373,924.67 


885,636.93 




6/30/2003 












642,762.97 


11/01/2003 


7,319,292.00 


(181,004.26) 


7,138,287.74 


6,958,924.67 


(179,363.07) 




5/01/2004 


1,597,537.00 


(181,004.26) 


1,416,532.74 


2,236,374.67 


819,841.93 




6/30/2004 












640,478.86 


11/01/2004 


7,392,537.00 


(181,004.26) 


7.211,532.74 


7,101,374.67 


(110,158.07) 




5/01/2005 


1,515,537.75 


(181,004.26) 


1,334,533.49 


2,087,384.05 


752,850.56 




6/30/2005 












642,692.49 


11/01/2005 


7,465,537.75 


(181,004.26) 


7,284,533.49 


7,242,384.05 


(42,149.44) 




5/01/2006 


1,425,692.75 


(181,004.26) 


1,244,688.49 


1,925,001.55 


680,313.06 




6/30/2006 












638,163.62 


11/01/2006 


7,550,692.75 


(181,004.26) 


7,369,688.49 


7,410,001.55 


40,313.06 




5/01/2007 


1,328,611.50 


(181,004.26) 


1,147.607.24 


1.750,167.17 


602,559.93 




6/30/2007 












642,672.99 


11/01/2007 


7,643,611.50 


(181,004.26) 


7,462,607.24 


7.580,167.17 


117,559.93 




5/01/2008 


1,219,362.00 


(181.004.26) 


1,038,357.74 


1,563,607.17 


525,249.43 




6/30/2008 












642,809.36 


11/01/2008 


7,759,362.00 


(181,004.26) 


7,578,357.74 


7,773,607.17 


195,249.43 




5/01/2009 


1,099,680.00 


(181,004.26) 


918,675.74 


1,364,887.17 


446,211.43 




6/30/2009 












641,460.86 


11/01/2009 


7,874,680.00 


(181,004.26) 


7,693,675.74 


7,974,887.17 


281,211.43 




5/01/2010 


971,971.25 


(181,004.26) 


790,966.99 


1,150,062.17 


359,095.18 




6/30/2010 












640,306.61 


11/01/2010 


8,016,971.25 


(181,004.26) 


7,835,966.99 


8,190,062.17 


354,095.18 




5/01/2011 


834,946.00 


(181,004.26) 


653,941.74 


938,862.17 


284,920.43 




6/30/2011 












639,015.61 


11/01/2011 


8,134,946.00 


(181,004.26) 


7,953,941.74 


8,388,862.17 


434,920.43 




5/01/2012 


690,406.00 


(161,004.26) 


509,401.74 


715,362.17 


205,960.43 




6/30/2012 












640,880.86 


11/01/2012 


8,280,406.00 


(181,004.26) 


8,099,401.74 


8,615,362.17 


515,960.43 




5/01/2013 


534,811.00 


(181,004.26) 


353.806.74 


478,362.17 


124,555.43 




6/30/2013 












640,515.86 


11/01/2013 


8,424,811.00 


(181,004.26) 


8,243,806.74 


8,843.362.17 


599,555.43 




5/01/2014 


367,543.00 


(181,004.26) 


186.538.74 


227,412.17 


40,873.43 




6/30/2014 












640,426.86 


11/01/2014 


8,012,543.00 


(181,004.26) 


7,831,538.74 


8,510,225.23 


678,686.49 




5/01/2015 


201,264.25 


(185.723.25) 


15,541.00 


(19,786.94) 


(35,327.94) 




6/30/2015 












643,358.55 


11/01/2015 


9,166,264.25 


(9,166.264.25) 










Total 


123,659,908.75 


(13,786,140.86) 


109,873,767.89 


118,209,515.39 


8,335,747.50 





PRESENT VALUE ANALYSIS SUMMARY (NET TO NET) 



Gross PV Debt Service Savings 

Effects of changes in DSR investments.. 



Net PV Cashflow Savings Q 4.172*- (A1C).. 
NET PRESENT VALUE BENEFIT 



NET PV BENEFIT / $92,105,000 REFUNDED PRINCIPAL.... 
NET PV BENEFIT / S95.875.000 REFUNDING PRINCIPAL. 



9,973,896.99 
(3,556,870.60) 



6.417,026.39 
$6,417,026.39 



6.9675 
6.693*; 



Montague DeRose and As 
Public Finance 



File -SAN FRANPUC.SF 
10/11/2001 5:14 PM 



Page 2 

67 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Items 6. 7 and 8 - Files 02-0046. 02-0047. and 02-0048 



Department: 
Items: 



Real Estate Division 

Item 6. File 02-0046 : Resolution authorizing and 
approving a lease for cellular transmitter space at Fire 
Station 30 (inactive) at 1300 4 th Street to Bay Area Cellular 
Telephone Company dba AT&T Wireless. 

Item 7, File 02-0047 : Resolution authorizing and 
approving a lease for cellular transmitter space at the 
Mental Health Rehabilitation Facility at San Francisco 
General Hospital to Sprint Spectrum Limited Partnership. 

Item 8, File 02-0048 : Resolution authorizing and 
approving three leases for cellular transmitter space at Fire 
Station 40 at 2155 18 th Avenue, Fire Station 6 at 135 
Sanchez Street, and Fire Station 15 at 1000 Ocean Avenue, 
San Francisco to Metro PCS. 



Locations: 



Purpose of Leases: 



Lessor: 



Item 6. File 02-0046 : Fire Station 30 is located at 1300 4 th 
Street, on the southwest corner of 3 rd Street (Assessor's 
Block 3837, Lot 4). 

Item 7. File 02-0047 : The San Francisco General Hospital 
Mental Health Rehabilitation Facility is located at 887 
Potrero Avenue, on the northeast corner of 22 nd Street 
(Assessor's Block 4090, Lot 2). 

Item 8, File 02-0048 : Fire Station 40 is located at 2155 
18 th Avenue between Santiago Street and Taravel Street 
(Assessor's Block 2199, Lot 3); Fire Station 6 is located at 
135 Sanchez Street between Market Street and 14 th Street 
(Assessor's Block 3524, Lot 25); and Fire Station 15 is 
located at 1000 Ocean Avenue on the northwest corner of 
Phelan Avenue (Assessor's Block 3780, Lot 1). 

To allow Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company dba AT&T 
Wireless, Sprint Spectrum Limited Partnership, and Metro 
PCS to locate cellular telephone transmitters on City- 
owned facilities. 

City and County of San Francisco 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

68 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Lessees: 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Monthly and Annual 
Rent Payable by 
Lessees to the City: 



Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company (Item 6, File 02- 
0046), Sprint Spectrum Limited Partnership (Item 7, File 
02-0047), and Metro PCS (Item 8, File 02-0048) 



Item 6. File 02-0046: 

Approximately 12 square feet at 
$1,200 per month ($14,400 annually) 

Item 7. File 02-0047 : 

Approximately 189 square feet at 
$5,000 per month ($60,000 annually) 

Item 8. File 02-0048 : 

Three leases: 

1) Fire Station 40 - Approximately 20 square feet at $3,000 
per month ($36,000 annually) 

2) Fire Station 6 - Approximately 60 square feet at $3,000 
per month ($36,000 annually) 

3) Fire Station 15 - Approximately 24 square feet at $3,000 
per month ($36,000 annually) 



Term of Five Leases: Five years expected to commence as of March 15, 2002, 
and to expire on March 14, 2007, five years after the 
commencement date. 



Right of Renewal: 



Rent Adjustments: 



Under the terms of each of the proposed leases the lessees 
would have the option of one additional term of five years. 

At the anniversary date of each lease, anticipated to begin 
on March 15, 2003, and for the remaining four years of each 
of the proposed five leases, the base rent will be adjusted 
annually by the annual percentage increase in the 
Consumer Price Index (CPI). The monthly base rent on or 
after the adjustment date cannot be less than the monthly 
base rent in effect immediately prior to the adjustment 
date. 



Additionally, prior to the exercise of the five-year options, 
the base rent would be adjusted to equal the fair market 
rent of the subject property. This adjustment would be 
determined by the Real Estate Division (RED), using a 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

69 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Utilities and 
Janitorial 
Provided by Lessees: 

Tenant 
Improvements: 



Descriptions: 



market survey approach for comparable space leased for 
cellular telephone transmitters. 



Lessees pay for the cost of all utilities and janitorial 
services for each of the proposed five leases. 

Upon commencement of the subject leases, Bay Area 
Cellular Telephone Company, Sprint Spectrum Limited 
Partnership, and Metro PCS will install, solely at their 
cost, the necessary cellular transmitter equipment at the 
five City-owned facilities. 

Items 6. Files 02-0046 : The proposed resolution would 
authorize a five-year lease between the City and Bay Area 
Cellular Telephone Company for ground space adjacent to 
Fire Station 30, located on 1300 4 th Street. 



Under the subject lease, and Bay Area Cellular Telephone 
Company proposes to construct and maintain 1) one 
equipment cabinet on the Station's site, 2) one battery pack 
on the Station's site, and 3) up to two antennae attached to 
the side of the fire house. According to Mr. Larry Jacobson 
of RED, the equipment cabinet will relay telephone signals 
to and from cellular phone users, while the battery pack 
will supply emergency power. The approximate service 
area would be a short portion of 3 rd Street, south of Mission 
Creek. 

Item 1, File 02-0047 : The proposed resolution would 
authorize a five-year lease between the City and Sprint 
Spectrum Limited Partnership for space on the roof of the 
San Francisco General Hospital Mental Health 
Rehabilitation Building, located at 887 Portrero Avenue. 

Under the subject lease, Sprint Spectrum Limited 
Partnership proposes to construct and maintain 1) six 
equipment cabinets on the Building's roof, 2) one 
emergency generator on the Buildings roof, and 3) six 
antennae placed behind the parapet facing the south, west 
and north streets. The approximate service area will be US 
101 and the eastern portion of the Mission District. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

70 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 8, File 02-0048 : The proposed resolution would 
authorize three five-3 r ear leases between the City and 
Metro PCS for space on the roof of 1) Fire Station 40, 
located at 2155 18 th Avenue, 2) Fire Station 6, located at 
135 Sanchez Street, and 3) Fire Station 15, located at 1000 
Ocean Avenue. 

Under the subject lease, Metro PCS proposes to construct 
and maintain 12 equipment cabinets and three antennae 
on the roof and hose tower of both Fire Stations 15 and 40. 
Metro PCS would also place 14 equipment cabinets and 
nine antennae on the roof and hose tower of Fire Station 6. 
The approximate service areas will be as follows: 1) Fire 
Station 40 - 19 th Avenue/Sunset District, 2) Fire Station 6 
— Market St./ Duboce Triangle/ Western Addition/ Eureka 
Valley, 3) Fire Station 15 - Ocean Avenue/Phelan Avenue, 
City College, Westwood Park and Ingleside. 

Comments: 1. According to Mr. Jacobson, the proposed rental rates 

represent RED's current rates for cellular communication 
site leases and are considered to represent fair market 
value. Attachment I, provided by Mr. Jacobson, explains 
the basis of the rent to be charged for each of the proposed 
five leases. 

According to Mr. Jacobson, the rental value of cellular 
transmission space is based upon the service provided to 
cellular phone users and the amount of potential phone 
traffic at specific locations, and is not based upon the 
number of square feet at the transmitter site. The rentable 
area at each of the three proposed leases varies in size due 
to the differing size specifications of the equipment needed 
at each location. Mr. Jacobson notes that the rental rate of 
$1,200 per month for Fire Station 30 (Item 6, File 02-0046) 
is significantly lower than the rental rate of $5,000 per 
month for the San Francisco General Hospital Mental 
Health Rehabilitation Building (Item 7, File 02-0047) due 
to a smaller coverage area at Fire Station 30. 

2. Mr. Jacobson advises that RED is not required to conduct 
a competitive bidding process for awarding leases for 
cellular transmitter space because it would be impractical. 
Mr. Jacobson notes that the selection of lessees are in 
accordance with Chapter 23, Section 23.30 of the 
Administrative Code, which states, "The Director of 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

71 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Property shall arrange for such Lease to the highest 
responsible bidder in accordance with Competitive Bidding 
Procedures, unless... such Competitive Bidding Procedures 
are impractical or impossible...", Mr. Jacobson states that 
Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company, Sprint Spectrum 
Limited Partnership, and Metro PCS requested the subject 
sites as part of each company's cellular coverage plan, for 
cellular transmitter space as is the standard procedure. 
Attachment II, provided by Mr. Jacobson, is a memo 
describing the impractical nature to request bids for 
cellular transmitter space. 

3. Mr. Jacobson reports that according to the Notice of 
Special Restrictions under Article 7, Section 174 of the City 
Planning Code, all of the subject projects have been 
reviewed by a certified professional engineer retained by 
the lessees. According to Mr. Jacobson, Hammett & Edison 
Inc. has reviewed Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company, 
Sprint Spectrum Limited Partnership, and Metro PCS 
radio frequency emissions, and has determined that the 
proposed sites are in compliance with radio wave 
requirements set by the Federal Communications 
Commission and the America National Standards Institute 
(ANSI), a nonprofit organization that administers and 
coordinates multi-industry standards. 

4. Each of the three proposed resolutions authorizes the 
Director of Property to "...enter into any amendments or 
modifications to the Lease... that the Director of Property 
determines, in consultation with the City Attorney, are in 
the best interest to the City, do not increase the rent or 
otherwise materially increase the obligations or liabilities 
of the City, are necessary or advisable to effectuate the 
purposes of the Lease or this resolution, and are in 
compliance with all applicable laws, including City's 
Charter." 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

72 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 23, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolutions. 



*?./£? 



Harvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Maxwell 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

73 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 1 



City and County of San Francisco 



Real Estate Division 




Administrative Services Department 



Attachment I 



MEMORANDUM 



DATE: January 16, 2002 

TO: Leanne Nhan 

Budget Analyst's Office 

FROM: Larry Jacobson 

Real Estate Division 

SUBJECT: Cell Phone Transmitter Rental Rates 



This memorandum is to inform you of the three fees currently applied to these cell phone 
transmitter sites. These sites are large enough for a second and in some cases, a third cell 
phone company to co-locate and place transmitters and antennae in operation. Co-location 
cannot occur without Planning and Board of Supervisor approval. 

• Sprint Spectrum will pay $5,000.00 per month rent based upon its cell phone coverage 
of the James Lick Freeway. Sites adjacent to US 101 Freeway, 1-80 and Bay Bridge 
approach as well as Doyle Drive and the Golden Gate Bridge, e.g., Hall of Justice, San 
Francisco General Hospital are S5,000.00 per month rent. Rent is based upon traffic 
counts of 92,000,000 vehicles per annum on US 101/1-80, and 44,000,000 vehicles per 
annum on the Golden Gate Bridge. 

• Metro PCS will pay S3, 000. 00 per month rent for sites located at Fire Stations along 
major City streets. Sites covering high volume streets, e.g., Oak, Fell, Gough, Franklin, 
Lombard, Market St., 19* Avenue, etc. are S3, 000. 00 per month. Rent is based upon 
12,000,000 to 25,000,000 vehicles per annum. The Fire station at Ocean Ave. and 
Phelan Ave. serves these streets and City College. 

• AT&T will pay S 1 ,200.00 per month rent. Sites which provide micro coverage for a 
fraction of a square mile; such as a three or four block coverage area pay S 1 ,200.00 per 
month. 

If you have any questions please call me at 554-9863. 



1/U/CcllPh Tnnsmc- Rcmll _Budg:Anilys 



(415) 554-9850 
FAX: (415) 552-9216 



Office of the Director of Property 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 



74 



San Francisco, ' 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 1 



City and County of San Francisco 



Real Estate Division 




Administrative Services Department 



Attachment 2 



MEMORANDUM 



DATE: January 15,2002 

TO: Leanne Nhan 

Budget Analyst's Office 

FROM: Larry Jacobson 

Senior Real Property Officer 

SUBJECT: Siting Cellular Phone Transmitters; 

Reason it is impractical to request bids 



Each cellular phone company establishes its own set of cells; each cell covers a finite 
geographic area. The area of the cell, generally round, is affected by both topography and 
the amount of telephone traffic within any geographic area. 

Cellular phone companies have different cell configurations. The cellular phone company, 
based upon its cell configuration, determines where to place the transmitter and antennae 
and approaches the property owner. 

The City and County of San Francisco can often accommodate cell phone companies on 
City property - but not always. There may be problems such as finding space for the 
transmitter equipment, 24-hour access, proximity to neighboring apartment houses, etc. 
Since cellular phone companies have differing needs for siting cell phone transmitters, it is 
impractical to request bids for a specific site since generally only one company has an 
interest in a selected site. 

Finally, FCC requirements provide for co-location of cell phone equipment. The 
companies doing business in San Francisco have approached the City on a number of 
occasions seeking co-location. The Metro PCS application on Fire Station 15 at 1000 
Ocean Avenue is a co-location site. 



IJ\Celll»h Trammer Sinn? adftAn.il 2002 



115)554-9850 

AX: (415)552-9216 

4102 



Office of the Director of Property 

25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 

75 



San Francisco, CA 



Citv and Countv of San Francisco Cit y Ha " 

^ 1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Meeting Minutes Goodiett piace 

San Francisco, CA 

Finance Committee 94102^689 

Members: Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Sophie Maxwell 

Clerk: GailJohnson 

Wednesday, January 30, 2002 10:00 AM City Hall, Room 263 

Regular Meeting 

Members Present: Aaron Peskin, Chris Daly, Sophie Maxwell. 



Supervisor Ammiano appointed Supervisor Daly to serve as Vice Chair at today's Finance Committee meeting. 
MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 10:05 a.m. 

012282 [2002 Water Revenue Bonds Issuance] 

Resolution approving the issuance of not to exceed SI 64,000,000 aggregate principal amount of San Francisco 

water revenue bonds to be issued by the Public Utilities Commission of the City and County of San Francisco; 

affirming covenants contained in the indenture pursuant to which the water revenue bonds are issued; and 

authorizing the taking of appropriate actions in connection therewith; and related matters. (Public Utilities 

Commission) 

12/19/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Kingsley Okereke, Director of Finance, Public 

Utilities Commission; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 

Amended on page 2, line 3, by replacing "$140,000,000" with "$164,000,000." 

Continued to 2/13/02. 

AMENDED. 

CONTINUED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes; 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



020003 [Grant of up to $500,000 from the California Integrated Waste Management Board for clean-up of 
illegal dumping sites in San Francisco] 
Supervisors McGoldrick, Peskin, Hall, Nevvsom 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $500,000 
from the California Integrated Waste Management Board for clean-up of illegal dumping sites in San 
Francisco. (Public Works Department) 

12/31/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Public Health and Environment Committee. 
1/1 8/02, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Edwin Lee. Director. Department of Public 
Works 

RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco I Printed at -i:4S P M M 3 3 HJ 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



January 30, 2002 



020096 [Establishing Monthly Contribution to Health Service Trust Fund] 

Resolution establishing monthly contribution amount to Health Service Trust Fund. (Human Resources 
Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

1/16/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the January 30, 2002 

meeting. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Yvonne Hudson, Director, Health Service 
System; Mike Kramer, Towers Perrin (consultant to Health Service System); Alice Villagomez, Deputy 
Director, Employee Relations Division, Human Resources Department; Jonathan Holtzman, Mayor's Office; 
Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



020100 [Public Auction - Tax Defaulted Real Property] 

Resolution authorizing Tax Collector to sell at public auction certain parcels of tax-defaulted real property. 
(Treasurer-Tax Collector) 

1/14/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be scheduled for consideration as soon as 
possible. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Francis Nguyen, Manager, Property 
Tax/License, Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



020046 [Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company dba AT&T Wireless Lease] 

Resolution authorizing and approving a lease of cellular transmitter space at the Fire Station 30 (inactive) at 

1300 4th Street to Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company dba AT&T Wireless. (Real Estate Department) 

1/9/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

1/23/02, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marc McDonald, Director of Property, Real 

Estate Division, Department of Administrative Services. 

Continued to 1/30/02. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marc McDonald, Director of Property, Real 
Estate Division, Administrative Services Department; Captain James Lee, Support Services, Fire Department. 
(An amended lease was placed in the file of the Board by the Department.) 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 4:48 PM on 3/3/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes January 30, 2002 



020059 |Reserved Funds, Human Resources Department] 

Hearing to request release of reserved funds, Department of Human Resources (Fiscal Year 2001-02 Budget), 

in the amount of $12,716,850 to fund the remaining salary and fringe benefits for the Special Assistant 

positions. (Human Resources Department) 

1/1 1/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the January 30, 2002 

meeting. 

1/23/02, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Edward Harrington, Controller; Steve Kawa, Mayor's Office; Jonathan 

Holtzman, Mayor's Office; Geoffrey Rothman, Director, Employee Relations Division, Department of Human Resources; Carol Isen, 

Associate Director, Local 21; Jean Mariani. 

Continued to 1/30/02. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Jonathan Holtzman, Mayor's Office; Andrea Gourdine, Human Resources 

Director; David Novogrodsky, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21; 

Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Todd Rydstrom, Controller's Office. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $2,543,370 (1/5 of funds requested) approved. Consideration of 

remainder ($10,173,480) continued to the Call of the Chair. 

Title of hearing amended by replacing "$12,716,850" with "$10,173,480. " 

AMENDED. 

Hearing to request release of reserved funds, Department of Human Resources (Fiscal Year 2001-02 Budget), 
in the amount of $10,173,480 to fund the remaining salary and fringe benefits for the Special Assistant 
positions. (Human Resources Department) 
CONTINUED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 12:12 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 3 Printed at 4:48 PM on 3 3 04 






CITY AND COUNTY 




OF^AN 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



January 24, 2002 



TO: 



.Finance Committee 



FROM: ^ Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 01-2282 

Department: 



Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

JAN 2 9 2002 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Resolution authorizing the issuance of not to exceed 
$164,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of San 
Francisco Water Revenue Bonds to be issued by the PUC 
for the purpose of water system reliability and seismic 
safety improvements and Safe Drinking Water 
improvements; affirming covenents contained in the 
indenture pursuant to which the Water Revenue Bonds 
are issued; and, authorizing the taking of appropriate 
actions in connection with the issuance of the Water 
Revenue Bonds. 

Not to exceed $164,000,000 

San Francisco Water Revenue Bonds (Water Revenue 
Bonds) 

On November 4, 1997 San Francisco voters approved (a) 
Proposition A, authorizing the City to issue $157,000,000 
m Water Revenue Bonds to construct reliability and 
seismic safety improvements to the City's water system 
(Systems Reliability Projects); and. (b) Proposition B, 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



authorizing the City to issue $147,000,000 in Water 
Revenue Bonds to construct safe drinking water 
improvements to the City's water system (Safe Drinking 
Water Projects). The total authorized bond amount for 
the two bond issues is $304,000,000. In May of 1999, the 
Board of Supervisors authorized the issuance of up to 
$140,000,000 in Water Revenue Bonds of the total voter- 
approved bond amount of $304,000,000 for Systems 
Reliability Projects and Safe Drinking Water Projects 
(File 99-0784). According to Ms. Ester Abenojar of the 
PUC, the PUC issued $140,000,000 in Water Revenue 
Bonds in July of 2001 (see Comment No. 1). 

This proposed resolution would authorize the PUC to 
issue the remaining $164,000,000, out of the total voter- 
authorized bond amount of $304,00,000, for the purpose of 
(1) completing the Systems Reliability Projects and the 
Safe Drinking Water Projects; (2) funding debt service 
reserves; and, (3) paying the costs of issuance. Ms. 
Abenojar advises that the System Reliability Projects and 
the Safe Drinking Water Projects would provide the City's 
three water treatment facilities with upgrades to improve 
water quality and upgrade the water distribution system, 
pumping stations and treated water storage facilities for 
the Water Enterprise's water system. The proposed 
resolution would also approve the form and terms of 
documents and official notices related to the bond sale, 
and authorize City officials to take various actions 
necessary to carry out the sale of the bonds. 

The City's authority to issue the proposed $164,000,000 in 
Water Revenue Bonds for the Systems Reliability Projects 
and the Safe Drinking Water Projects comes from Charter 
Section 9.107. According to Ms. Abenojar, bondholders of 
these Water Revenue Bonds are paid from the net 
revenues of the Water Enterprise. Ms. Michelle Sexton of 
the City Attorney's Office advises that these Water 
Revenue Bonds do not require the City's General Fund to 
repay the bonds. Ms. Sexton further advises that when 
the subject Water Revenue Bonds are issued, they will be 
tax-exempt. 

The general provisions of the sale of the Water Revenue 
Bonds would be as follows: 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



• The timing of issuance of the Water Revenue Bonds 
will be determined by market conditions. However, 
the PUC anticipates issuing the Water Revenue Bonds 
in July of 2002. 

• The Water Revenue Bonds will have a 30-year life. 

• The bonds would be issued at an interest rate not to 
exceed eight percent. 

Ms. Abenojar advises that if the bonds were issued at this 
time, the bonds would have an estimated interest rate of 
between 5 percent and 5.5 percent. As shown in 
Attachment I, provided by the PUC, the proposed sale of 
the $164,000,000 in Water Revenue Bonds, assuming an 
interest rate of 5.5 percent, would result in a total debt 
service of approximately $338,522,517 ($164,000,000 in 
principal payments plus $174,522,517 in interest costs) 
over the 30-year life of the bonds. Therefore, the average 
annual debt service on the Water Revenue Bonds, 
assuming a 5.5 percent interest rate is approximately 
$11,284,084 annually to be paid from the Water 
Enterprise's net revenues. 

The following is a breakdown of the estimated sources 
and uses of the $164,000,000 of bond funds: 



Estimated Sources of Funds 


$164,000,000 


Principal Amount of 2002 Bonds 


Total Sources 


$164,000,000 


Estimated Uses of Funds 


112,226,519 


Deposit to 2002 Series A Project Fund 


Deposit to 2002 Series A Refunding Fund 1 


50,149,648 


Cost of Issuance 2 


1,120,353 


Underwriter's Discount 3 


503,480 


Total Uses 


164,000.000 


1 Assumes SFPUC will issue $48 million in 


Commercial Paper (CP) notes to cover Feb. 2002 - July 2002 


project costs. Interest rate is 1.75% for 30-day maturity in case CP interest rates rise (see Comment No. 1). 


2 0.683% times $164,000,000. Cost of issuance includes use of a Surety Policy (see Comment No. 6) 


J 0.307% times $164,000,000 





BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Abenojar, in May of 1999 the 

Board of Supervisors authorized the PUC to issue up to 
$150,000,000 in commercial paper 1 for the purpose of 
financing and refinancing certain capital improvements to 
the City's water system and for the costs of issuance and 
other related costs (File 98-2026). In October 2000 the 
Board of Supervisors authorized the PUC to expand the 
aggregate principal amount which could be outstanding at 
any one time in its commercial paper program from 
$150,000,000 to $250,000,000, an increase of 
$100,000,000 or approximately 66.7 percent (File 00- 
1789). According to Ms. Abenojar, under the original 
commercial paper resolution (File 98-2026) the PUC was 
authorized to issue commercial paper to fund the costs of 
water system improvement projects on an interim basis 
until all of the $304,000,000 in voter-authorized Water 
Revenue Bonds are sold. Ms. Abenojar advises that in 
July of 1999 the PUC began issuing commercial paper to 
fund the Systems Reliability Projects and the Safe 
Drinking Water Projects. 

Ms. Abenojar advises that in July of 2001 the PUC issued 
the previously approved Water Revenue Bonds in the 
amount of $140,000,000 (File 99-0874) to refund 
approximately $85,000,000 in commercial paper and the 
remaining approximately $55,000,000 was used to fund 
the costs of the Systems Reliability Projects and Safe 
Drinking Water Projects. Ms. Abenojar advises that the 
PUC will continue to use commercial paper to fund the 
Systems Reliability Projects and the Safe Drinking Water 
Projects until the proposed not to exceed $164,000,000 in 
Water Revenue Bonds are sold, which is estimated to be 
July of 2002, in order to take advantage of current short- 
term commercial paper interest rates. As of January 14, 
2002, 30-day commercial paper interest rates were 1.3 
percent, according to Ms. Abenojar. When bond market 
interest rates are favorable to the City, the PUC will issue 
the $164,000,000 in Water Revenue Bonds and refund 
any outstanding commercial paper. 



1 Commercial paper is issued on an as-needed basis to meet short-term cash demands and can be 
used as a short-term, low-cost source of construction financing prior to the sale of long-term Revenue 
Bonds. The PUC's Commercial Paper program is not backed by General Fund Revenues and does not 
create any exposure to the General Fund. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



2. Attachment II, provided by the PUC, is a list of the 
existing Systems Reliability Projects and the Safe 
Drinking Water Projects, including project costs. As 
shown in Attachment II, the total estimated cost for the 
Systems Reliability Projects is $156,968,550 (see 
Comment No. 5), and the total estimated cost for the Safe 
Drinking Water Projects is $147,000,000. Therefore, the 
total cost for both the Systems Reliability Projects and 
Safe Drinking Water Projects is $303,968,550. Those 
total costs are funded from the total voter-authorized 
bond amount of $304,000,000, of which $140,000,000 was 
issued by the PUC in July of 2001 and $164,000,000 
would be issued by the PUC in July of 2002 if this 
proposed resolution is approved. 

3. Ms. Abenojar advises that the PUC began the subject 
Systems Reliability Projects and the Safe Drinking Water 
Projects in July of 1999 and the completion date for the 
projects vary, depending on the project. As of December 
31, 2001, the PUC has expended approximately 
$71,178,508 on the Systems Reliability Projects and 
approximately $43,059,742 on the Safe Drinking Water 
Projects for total expenditures of $114,238,250. 
Attachment III, provided by the PUC, contains actual 
expenditures, by project, to date, as well as estimated 
project completion dates. 

4. According to Ms. Abenojar, the amount appropriated 
for the Systems Reliability Projects and the Safe Drinking 
Water Projects is as follows: FY 1999-2000, $126,099,850; 
FY 2000-2001, $100,232,700; and, FY 2001-2002, 
$77,636,000, for a total appropriation of $303,968,550. 
The remaining revenue bond fund proceeds in the amount 
of $31,450 ($304,000,000 less $303,968,550) will be 
included in the Water Department's FY' 2002-2003 budget 
request, according to Mr. Carlos Jacobo of the PUC. Mr. 
Jacobo advises that the prior appropriation of 
$303,968,550 for the Systems Reliability Projects and the 
Safe Drinking Water Projects was from commercial paper 
proceeds previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, 
which are reimbursed when the voter-approved Water 
Revenue Bonds are sold. As noted above, as of December 
31, 2001, approximately $114,238,250 of the previously 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



authorized $140,000,000 Water Revenue Bond proceeds 
has been expended. 

5. According to Ms. Abenojar, the total estimated cost of 
the Systems Reliability Projects is $156,968,550, which is 
$31,450 less than the voter-approved bond amount of 
$157,000,000 ($157,000,000 less total project costs of 
$156,968,550). Ms. Abenojar advises that the total 
estimated cost of the Safe Drinking Water Projects is 
$147,000,000. Ms. Abenojar advises that the $31,450 
would be allocated to the costs of the Water Revenue 
Bond issuance, which is estimated to be $1,120,353, and 
any unspent revenue bond funds and related interest 
earnings would be allocated to capital improvement 
projects consistent with the purposes approved by the San 
Francisco voters in 1997. 

6. Ms. Abenojar advises that the Debt Service Reserve 
Fund is estimated to be approximately $5,642,042, or half 
of the maximum annual debt service payment of 
approximately $11,284,084. Typically, a Debt Service 
Reserve Fund is funded from the bond proceeds. 
However, Ms. Abenojar advises that, if it is economical, 
the PUC may fund the Debt Service Reserve Fund by 
obtaining a Surety Policy for the proposed Water Revenue 
Bonds. A Surety Policy is similar to an insurance policy 
and is used in lieu of a Debt Service Reserve Fund. The 
Surety Policy amount would be equal to the Debt Service 
Reserve Fund requirement of an estimated $5,642,042. A 
Surety Policy on the Water Revenue Bonds would cost 
approximately 1.68 percent of the amount of the Debt 
Service Reserve Fund amount of $5,642,042, or $94,786, 
which would be funded from the bond proceeds. Ms. 
Abenojar advises that the estimated sources and uses of 
the $164,000,000 of bond funds, provided in the table 
above, assumes that the PUC would obtain a Surety 
Policy and such costs are included in the estimated cost of 
issuance of $1,120,353. However, according to Ms. 
Abenojar, as of the writing of this report, the PUC has not 
yet determined whether a cash Debt Service Reserve 
Fund will be utilized or whether a Surety Policy will be 
obtained and, as of the writing of this report, she is 
uncertain as to the precise amount of savings which 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

would result by using a Surety Policy instead of a Debt 
Service Reserve Fund. However, such savings, if realized, 
would be used for capital improvement projects. 

7. This subject resolution also authorizes taking future 
actions in connection with the Water Revenue Bonds, 
such as obtaining a bond rating for the Water Revenue 
Bonds, obtaining bond insurance and obtaining a Surety 
Policy if such a policy is in the best interest of the City. 

8. Page two, line three of the proposed resolution 
incorrectly states that the proposed bond issuance is, "not 
to exceed $140.000.000 " when it should read, "not to 
exceed $164.000.000 ." Therefore, the Budget Analyst 
recommends amending page two, line three of the 
proposed resolution to replace "$140,000,000" with 
"$164.000.000" so that the phrase reads, "not to exceed 
$164.000.000 . .." 

Recommendations: 1. In accordance with Comment No. 8, amend page two, 

line three of the proposed resolution by replacing 
"$140.000.000" with "$164.000.000" so that the phrase 
reads, "not to exceed $164.000. 000 . .." 

2. Approve the proposed resolution, as amended. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGETy^NALYST 



Attachment I 



M M W 
O O O 
U U U 



ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo 



UfOMMMWWMMWW-'-'-' — 
O(D05N0)U1AUM-'O(D0;N0)aiAUM 



w o o o o 

OOCOSOlOlJiUM 



o o 

~O0 00 

CD CO 

cn -b. 

bo o 



CO _N0 OO CO 
NO tO 



MOOkCOS 
■b CD <J) 00 00 CO -0, 



MvlO(D(DOO->-iN)MUUU4iAJiOiaiUiaiO) 

^toocn_-^^_NO_toococo_Nocoo : b.co-'cnco->..baDto-». 
V *» "o w "no bo is3 Vo "o en "to "to bo "cn "to "no V w 1* bo "to Vi 
Ni^ui->tnvi-'0)ai(Doco-b-icocDoo)a)to-uto 
totocntooNo^o.bcn--*i->-_--'._co-btoco.bcocoo~j-vicn 
"_k To bo "o bo bo "to "to "-* "co Vi 1a bo "cn "o bo "tp Vi "to "to "to 



-b to 



oo.bcn-vi.b.b.Noo->-oo 



sa)ouuoji.-i^oiNa)oo 



cn tn -»• oo 
N3 oo -b. ^j 
w co tn -b. 



-»0) vl o 



Auiaiaiuiaiffltno) 

to bo to ro "Jb Vi to ro 



^i_-o.-vicocococoooco 
~a> bo "to * 



_J> ->. -i. ro no to to to 

as "->• "cn "to "to bo _ 

lI10MU-»SM*'UiaiM(0-t»MO-'-'0(OtBIO^MO)ID 
OO0)-'-li0)M0!i»-'lDUN)lDUtSC010OMJH0mA(J1O 

oi no oo .b. to "no to "to to Vi "o ".b. bo "no tn "tn "o "co 'cn "to Vi "to ".b. tn "no "o "no "tn "-j. "Jb "o 

AOUOUMOlCOSOlSAtHDO-'MOlOl-'aOO^O 
MUCOID-NlUOSAU^CDUltOOOl-'OJ^aJOOOM-'OlOO 

Ns^fflAbbioww^iouUtnaMtnijiuiLnbifflKiJsbbbubb 

K10Q<Jl*.OlN|COt»OU*>N)01U->OJOUOUMSUOlO(Jl->l>0(DOO 



roJb.b_b^..b.t..b.bi^.^.-b.b.b^.b.u.^.b^..b-b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b.b 

"tn "o "o o "o ~o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o "o 
-^cococoascoaoaocoootoocooooocDaooocooooocooooooooococooocooooo 
^totocototocococotococococotococococococococococococococotoco 
hototototototototototototototototototototototototototototototo 



o 


o 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CD 


-j 


-J 


CO 


CO 


CO 
CO 

cn 


CO 
CO 


oo 

o 

CO 


O 

OO 


CD 
CO 
CO 


CO 
CO 


cn 


CO 

cn 
ro 


CO 

cn 

CO 


CO 

o 

CO 


CO 

■b. 




oo 

CD 

a 


-J 
o 


CD 
-b 

o 


-J 

CO 

■b 


o 

CO 

-b 


coo 

CD 
CO 


CO 
CD 

o 


o 
-b 


CO 


Jb 
tn 


o 

Jb 


-b 

coo 


NO 

cn 


CO 
CO 


coo 

CO 


CO 
CO 


-b 


CD 




a 


NO 

o 


CO 

o 


CO 

CO 


-b 

CD 


cn 
coo 


CO 

-b 


-«l 


-0. 

CD 




CO 
CO 

01 


CD 
CO 

Jb 


-b 
-b 
to 


cn 
cn 
ro 


CD 
CO 


CO 

cn 

CD 


ro 


-b 
-J 
co 


-b 
-b 
CD 


O 


CO 

-b 


o 

NO 

CD 


o 

CO 


-b 

o 

CD 


ro 
-b 

CO 


CD 
CD 

to 


o 
-J 


-J 

-b 


cn 
•b 


a 

o 


CO 


tn 

CO 


CO 

ro 


a 

00 


CO 
CO 


CD 


CD 


ro 


cn 
to 



tOOCONOCOCntOJbOCOODOD^JtONOOlO 

->• tn tn no -b -a i 
bo no bo "cn "tn " 
tn -*• o -a -* 



Ao~4tn-b.co-ito-b 
no "jb "o "co 



_ too tn to oo o 

t0C0C0t00d-v-i00OC000OC0 

ocooroAoowairooicDoitnsro-'-'tau 
i.MAurobbb'->bbboib 



o -vi -j. oo to Jb co 



NO O0 O to NO 



oototooo->--'-NONococotojbJb.b.cncncncnoDOD 

tn-'SrotBUCDrooiOboo-iuico-'-baitD-'.K 

"o "to no bo "no "no *o "tn "to "to bo "tn "to "no " 

tn -». cn ~J — ia)tn(Ooa*-»a)C5 

tna>No->jo^tn-j->-->-to-btoto 

"no bo "o bo "to "to "to -» bo Vi "-* bo tn "o bo "to ->i "to "to "to 



co ->■ co co -j o . 
too oo no Jb to o 

u co s s ai o 



too-'cn-b.co-i.co 
rococoto^uiAANtncouwco^-'-bUtvia) 
cototji-iJbbirocotocobotoo'^cjocotntTitnco 

-»cntDrO(D(DrOWO-'(O^MOOMCOOMCD 



m O > H 5" 03 

=•• a- 3 3 5 g 

3 ~ c 3 5 a. 

co W 5L to > 

I 3 T " 5 

O- < u o 

CO 



a> 3 



-o S> 
- £ 

-■ CD 



o i 



tn -»• 

&> CO NO 



5 Si Zi w w g 



Prop A and B Project List and Appropiations 



Attachment II 



FAMIS 
Project 

1997 A Water Revenue Bond Projects 



Title 



TOTAL 



CUW125 
CUW126 
CUW127 
CUW131 
CUW135 
CUW165 
CUW183 
CUW191 
CUW198 
CUW202 
CUW226 
CUW602 
CUW603 
CUW624 
CUW628 
CUW651 
CUW653 
CUW654 
CUW657 
CUW663 
CUW666 
CUW672 
CUW860 
CUW870 

CUW797 



Bay Division Pipeline - Seismic Upgrade at Hayward Fault 

Pulgas Valve Lot 

SCADA System 

SF Water Department - Intertie 

New Line & By Pass Valves 

Equipment Anchorage 

Palo Alto Redundant Connect 

Fire/Security Upgrades 

Stone Dam Rehabilitation 

Replace Prestressed Pipe (Crystal Springs Bypass) 

Bay Division Pipeline Recoating (at Newark) 

New Water Services/Meters 

Relocate/Realign Services 

Reservoir Roof Seismic Upgrade (University Mound rehabilitation) 

S.F. Reservoir/ Tank Rehabilitation 

Pump Station Upgrades 

Stand by Generators 

Seismic Upgrade North Basin (all Sunset Reservoir rehabilitation) 

Balboa/Francisco (Balboa Reservoir) 

Key Motorized Valves 

Clarendon Pump Station 

Sutro Reservoir 

Relocate/Realign Mains 

Water Main Replacement 

Commercial Paper - Admin/Interest Expense 
Bond Finacing Costs (including Reserve Fund) 

Total 



7,779,150 

426,700 

18,039,000 

8,368,300 

3,443,000 

3,039,500 

500,000 

2,572,000 

242,000 

10,732,500 

500,000 

5,944,250 

578,800 

16,000,000 

12,500,000 

7,600,000 

2,750,000 

6,700,000 

300,000 

2,100,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

580,500 

28,000,000 

5,117,700 
4,155,150 

156,968,550 



FAMIS 
Project 

1997 B Water Revenue Bond Projects 



Title 



CUW1 34 Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant Fast Tracks 

CUW143 Hetch Hetchy Water Treatment (chloramination) 

CUW1 86 Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project 

CUW206 Tesla Portal/Thomas Shaft 

CUW218 Harry Tracy Improvements 

CUW222 Water Quality Compliance Improvements 

CUW223 Distribution System Water Quality Improvement 

CUW230 Millbrae Lab Improvements 

CUW234 Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Short Term Improvement (filter to waste) 

CUW236 Water Quality Monitoring (Tesla) 

CUWG32 Sutro Reservoir - Inlet/Outlet 

CUW668 Other Reservoirs - Inlet/Outlet 

CUW797 Commercial Paper - Admin/Interest Expense 

Bond Financing Costs (including Reserve fund) 

Total 



2,068,550 

38,383,000 

59,481,000 

5,253,600 

10,000,000 

1,209,000 

850,000 

400,000 

2,420,000 

350.000 

17,167,000 

5,000,000 

625,000 
3,792,850 

147.000,000 



Source: Public Utilities Commission 



Attachment III 



o o 

II 



CD O O O 0) 0)OO 



■ |5 



' — o o 
2 o O O 



O O Q Q 

z z 

m m 



c c 
O O 



OOQOOOOoOO 



-i r ~- - u 



5<Q< j 5D<QO< 1 T 



CO o 
CN f»-_ 

o to" 



5 


o 

CD 


~o 


o 


n- cn 


O 


CO 


o> 


CO 


^- 


O 


T 


CO 


09 


in 


5 


m 
o 


in 


CO 


CO 


o 


CO 
X 


o 


g 


2 


s 


o 


CO 


£ 


1 


o 

CO 


o 


31 


M co 


ex 

o 


O 


5 


on 


CO 


CO 


J) 


N 


CD 


g 


CN 


o 


Q 


CO 


** 


s 


O 

in 


N 


en 

cn 


CO 


CD 


I*- 


J 


- 

CO 




*" 














in 




r*» 


















CO 




*" 






uD 


m 








in 


o 

00 


CD 


cd 


co co 

o cn 


•■cr 


CO 




OS 


CD 
O 


m 

PR 


m 


^ 




CD 




CO 


cn 

CO 


CO 


CO 


in 

CD 


t 


CO 

o 


s 


in 

CO 




8 


«» 


o 


s 


o 


5 


T 


cn * 


2 


•* 




o 


CN 


Q 


2 


8 




b 




8 


o 


CD 


en 


T 


CO 
CO 


CO* 


CO 


CO 


^ 


t 


CO 


g 














































a 

69 






CO 




CN 




o 


cj 


un 


to 

b 


CO 


in 

o 


1^ 




m 


CO 


co 


CD 


O 

o 




1 




*T 


r^ 


m 


o 




5 


2 


s 


T 


o 

CD 


T 


CD 


CO 


h - 


**- 


" 


N 


o 




CN 




s 




s 


CN 


-r 




o 




^ 


o 


o 

CD 


- 




s 


o 

o 


o 


o 


CO 


•" 


T 


"" 




** 
5 


N 


CO 


CO 


R 


O 


O 


to 


■<r 


o 


3 


o 


CD 
CD 


s 


Si 


CO 


CD 


UD 


s 


o 


■tf 


o 


T 


o 
o 


En 


m 

r- 

m 


cn 


N 
O 




ID 

CD 


co 


CO 


o_ 


o 
o 


^ , 






CD 




5 




a 


t 


CD 


o 

CO 


T 

co 

on 


CO 


m 

DO 




h- 




CD 


§ 




c-- 


CN 


TT 


o 


£ 




CD 


S) 


CO 

CO 


o 


CO 




r>«- 
o 

CO 


s 


CN 


g 






N 


CO 


CO 


5! 


o 


5 


o 


- 




OJ 


o 






O 

CD 


o 


O 

CO 


s 


CO 


CN 




-T 


T 


ro 


P3 


to 


CD 

UD 










■*r 


* 


CO 


5 




o 






<* 


rn" 






CO 



o ■; > 

< ra 3 O 



a (r 5 



D « - a n 





n) 






























rb 




















^ 








c* 


g 


a 


1 




y> 


5 


c 




o 












1J 
a: 


c 
o 
cr 


5 


3 


c 


o 


c 


ni 


(/> 


n 


o 


a 


a. 


■^ 



•S ~ "s «> ■= < 



a I 



ra 0) ■■=. ' 



C. >, 5 5 w - 



ccoatocoziuQ-LLi/ictcD 






2 3 D 3 

0. o u o 



S5ggggg5gggggggS555 

uuuoooouooooouuuuoo 



CO g 



C >< JZ >. == 



S3 


CO 


E 

CD 


c 


2 

i 


B 




c 
5 


5 

o 


o 






















i 


E 




U 


>. 

CO 

c 


Cl 

E 




2 


QJ 


5 

CD 



zcrtEcoat/ic/icD^Oinuctccg cuoox 



g g g 


g g g g 


d :d d 


D Z) =) 3 


u u u 


O U U O 



^a3 Sl io^K 

fj'ia £• 2 2 S 
igdSlgcoO 



gggggggg 

333Zir)DD3 

ouoououu 



Q. Q. -O w 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 2 - File 02-0003 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Grant Period: 

Source of Funds: 
Required Match: 
Indirect Costs: 

Description: 



Department of Public Works (DPW) 

Resolution authorizing the Director of Public Works to 
apply for, accept and expend a grant in the amount of 
$500,000 from the California Integrated Waste 
Management Board for clean-up of illegal dumping sites 
in San Francisco 

$500,000 

July 1, 2001 through June 30, 2004 (Three Years, See 
Comment No. 1) 

California Integrated Waste Management Board 

None required (See Comment No. 3) 

The California Integrated Waste Management Board 
prohibits the inclusion of indirect costs. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the Department 
of Public Works (DPW) to apply for, accept and expend 
$500,000 of grant funds from the California Integrated 
Waste Management Board. DPW would use the subject 
grant funds and $329,058 of City in-kind contributions, 
for a total of $829,058, to eliminate 25 illegal dumpsites in 
San Francisco on public easements or public property 
where indiscriminate dumping has occurred. 

The proposed project would consist of clean-up, 
mitigation, monitoring, and enforcement at 25 illegal 
dumpsites. The subject grant funds would be used to 
offset $500,000 of the cost of the $829,058 project. Under 
the proposed project, Mr. Douglas Legg of DPW advises 
that DPW would provide a total of 8.35 FTE personnel for 
bi-weekly litter removal from the dumpsites, weekly 
inspection of the dumpsites and to monitor the sites for 
illegal dumping. DPW personnel would also install signs 
at each of the 25 dumpsites which would state the 
maximum penalty for illegal dumping. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Budget: A summary budget for the $829,058 project budget, which 

includes $500,000 in grant funds and $329,058 of in-kind 
contributions is as follows: 

Personnel 

2.10 FTE 8280 Environmental Control Officer $103,088 

3.75 FTE 7514 Laborer 170,430 

1.25 FTE 7215 Labor Supervisor 62,920 

1.25 FTE 7355 Truck Driver 73.547 

Subtotal Salaries $409,985 
Fringe Benefits (26% of Salaries) 106,596 

Paid Time Off for Sick Leave, Vacation and 90,197 

Hobdays (22% of Salaries) 
Department Overhead (54% of Salaries)* 219.780 

Personnel Subtotal $826,558 

Installation of 250 Signs at $100 per sign (See 2,500 

Comment No. 2) 

Total Project Budget $829,058 
* Overhead costs include support costs of DPW Bureaus of 
Equipment, General Administration, Contract 
Administration, Payroll, Health and Safety and Project 
Management 

Attachment I, provided by Mr. Legg, provides additional 
budgetary details and the locations of the 25 illegal 
dumpsites for the $829,058 budget. 

Comments: 1. Although the subject grant period began on July 1, 

2001, according to Mr. Legg, the Department has not yet 
submitted an application for the subject grant. Mr. Legg 
advises that the California Waste Management Board 
requires that grant applications include a resolution 
approving the application for the subject grant before 
grant funds are awarded. Mr. Legg reports that, on the 
condition that San Francisco submit an approved 
resolution, the California Waste Management Board has 
awarded a $500,000 grant award to San Francisco. 

Mr. Legg advises that, to date, no funds have been 
expended on the proposed project. Mr. Legg further 
advises that the Department anticipates the project to be 
completed in early 2003, or approximately one year after 
the proposed resolution is approved. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

12 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



2. As shown on Attachment I, the Department would 
undertake mitigation strategies that would cost a total of 
$117,127, including $114,627 in salaries and fringe 
benefits and $2,500 in materials and supplies. Mr. Legg 
advises that 1.04 FTE Environmental Control Officer 
would monitor the dumpsites for persons that litter, for a 
cost of $114,627 in salaries and fringe benefits. Mr. Legg 
further advises that the remaining $2,500 budgeted for 
mitigation strategies would fund the installation of signs, 
at a cost of $100 per sign, at each of the 25 dumpsites. 
According to Mr. Legg, each sign would state the 
maximum penalty for illegal dumping. Mr. Legg advises 
that the $2,500 for signs is budgeted in the Materials and 
Supplies portion of the Department's approved FY 2001- 
2002 budget. 

3. Although the grantor does not require matching funds, 
Mr. Legg advises that the Department would provide in- 
kind contributions of $329,058 to fully fund the proposed 
project. Mr. Legg further advises that the 8.35 FTE 
personnel in the project budget are continuing personnel 
that are currently budgeted in the Department's approved 
FY 2001-2002 budget and will be included in the 
Department's FY 2002-2003 budget request. Mr. Legg 
notes that as part of the Mayor's Office plan to address 
the General Fund revenue losses in the current fiscal 
year, DPW made $1.8 million in cuts through General 
Fund salary savings and also transferred some 
expenditures to non-General Fund revenues. According to 
Mr. Legg, the subject $500,000 in grant revenues would 
be used to pay for salaries and fringe benefits that were 
originally budgeted as General Fund expenditures in FY 
2001-2002. 

4. Attachment II is the Grant Information Form, provided 
by Mr. Legg, which includes the Disability Access 
Checklist. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 1 



< 
2 

LU 



ra 
O 

1- 


IN 

CO 


CO 
CO 


CO 
co 


CO 

PI 

CO 


CO 
CO 


CN 

CO 

CO 


CN 

CO 


CN 

CO 

CO 

(A 


CO 

CO 
CO 


CO 

CO 
CO 


CN 
CO 

CO 
CO 


CO 


CN 
CO 


CN 
CO 


CN 
CD 

CO 
CO 


CN 
CD 

CO 
CO 


CN 
CD 

CO 
C/> 


CD 
CO 


CN 
CO 


CN 
CO 

CO 


CN 
CO 

CO 


CN 
CD 


CO 
to"* 


CO 


CM 

CO 


CO 

in 
o 

CM 
CO 


Inspector 

Labor Cost 

(8) 


in 

CN 

n 


CN 

m 


CO 

CN 

CO 


IT) 

CN 

r- 
co 


CO 
CN 

r- 
co 


tn 

CM 

CO 


CN 

co 


in 

CN 

r~- 
co 


in 

CN 

r-- 
co 


in 

CO 


OJ 


CN 


CN 

r- 
CO 


cn 

OJ 

S 

CO 


in 

CO 


cn 
CN 


uo 
CN 

r- 
co 


in 

CN 
CO 


m 

CN 

CO 


CO 
CN 
P^ 
CO 


m 

CN 

co 


n 


in 

CM 


uo 




CJ) 


3 r^ 

U yj 

P. 3 

go 


CO 


CD 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 

1*. 


CO 


CO 


CD 


CD 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CD 


CD 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 




c 

S3 S 
|1 


CD 
CD 


CO 

Cfl 


m 

CO 


Ifl 

CO 
CD 


CO 
CO 
CD 


CO 
CD 
-T 


en 

CO 


CO 
CD 

3 


CO 
CO 


CO 

CD 


CD 
CD 


cn 

CO 

CD 


CD 


CD 
CD 


CD 
CD 
T 


co 


CO 
CD 


CD 
CD 

<* 


CD 
CD 
■^ , 


CD 
CO 


=0 
CD 


CO 


m 
co 


co 

CD 


CO 
CD 

fa9 




c — - 
O tf) 

-- o 

If 

II 


H 

CO 

00 


00 
00 


1- 
00 

00 


t- 
CO 

CO 


r- 

00 
00 


oo 

00 


00 
00 


h- 

00 
00 


h 
a> 

00 


00 
00 




00 
00 


V- 
CO 

00 


00 
CO 


00 
00 


oo 

00 


t- 

to 


H 
00 

00 


co 

00 


1- 
00 


H 
co 

CO 


00 


r- 
00 


r- 
00 

00 


h- 
CO 




Direct Labor 

Cost 
Cleanup (4) 


UO 
CN 


CN 

CO 


CN 
CO 

CN 


CN 
CO 

r-- 

CN 


CN 
CO 

CN 


CN 
CN 


CN 
CO 

CN 


en 
N 

CN 


CN 

in 
CN 


in 

CN 


CN 

cn 


cn 

CN 


CN 

cn 
r~- 

CN 


CN 

CO 


CN 
CO 


CN 
CO 


CN 

in 


CN 
CO 
1*- 


CN 

cn 

CN 


CN 

in 

CN 


cn 


CM 
CM 


cn 

CM 


CM 


CM 


CO 


c 2. 

.2 >. 

w U 

o | 
III 




CN 






N 


















Ct 


CN 


CN 


CN 


r-i 


CN 


CN 


CN 


CN 


CM 




CM 




o 2. 

4) Ul 

>> .2 

2 


c 


X 

Q 

=a 
u 

m 

< 


X 

Q 

=>3 

O 

CD 
< 


X 

D 

u 

CD 
< 


X 
D 
O 
an 
< 


X 

X 
X 

a 

Si 

U 
a 
< 


X 

Q 
si 

o 

CD 
< 


X 
Q 

o 

CD 
< 


I 

a 
o 

cc 

< 


I 
X 

I 

Q 

o 

CO 

< 


X 

□ 
e<3 
O 
CQ 
< 


X 

a 
u 

CD 
< 


I 
Q 
U 
ca 
< 


I 

X 

a 

oB 

o 
< 


X 
X 

X 

□ 
o 

CD 

< 


X 

a 

'A 
u 

CQ 

< 


X 
X 

X 

CD 


I 

C 
oc3 

u 

CD 
< 


X 

Q 
c»5 

u 

CO 

< 


X 
X 

X 

a 

^i 
o 

CD 
< 


O 

X 
Q 

c5 

U 

CD 
< 


a 

CJ 

ca 
< 


X 
X 

x" 

a 

*3 
U 
CD 
< 


O 

X 
Q 

o 

CD 


o 
x" 
a" 

o 

cd" 

< 




Estimated 

Garbage On 

site (1) 


d 


CO 

CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


01 


CO 


cri 


CO 




CO 


CO 


T 




cn 


CO 
-cr 


-T 


cn 

CO 


T 




CN 


T 






T 




e 
o 

o 

2. 
i/5 


c 
n 

c 
5 

p 
U 

m 

.C 

CO. 


JC 

'J 


E 

CO 

c 

£ 

A 

0) 

</> 

X 

c 
o 
c 
c 

jC 
'j 
2 


E 
ra 

c 

(L 

c 

c 

O 

U_ 

X 

e 
n 
E 

< 




a 

C 

X 

0) 

-*c 

c 

IB 

> 




C 

8 

-p 
c 

3 
00 


- 
c 

■s 

o 
9 

i 

CD 

- 
X 


l 
X 

a 

E 

c 

JE 


CO 

2 

CO 

I 

CJ 



> 


-a 

E 

g 

I 
z 

c 

G 
C 

s 
s 

X 

c 

a 


c 

c 
ra 

cc 



*> 

CO 

o 


o 
1 




5 

CJ 

> 

CD 


o 

'J 

c 

1 
a 

X 


s 

X 

X 

o 

CO 

u 


T3 
c 

cc 
o 

t 

c 

c 

ca 

d; 

X 

c" 
o 
c 
c 
il. 

2 


a 

c 

CO 
> 
LU 

X 

JQ 

1) 

w 


u 

CO 

< 


c 
o 
c 
c 

vc 
S 

"O 

o 

a3 
■a 
X 

o 

Cc 
X 


CU 
> 

ra 
O 

HI 
X 

CO 


5 
| 

1 

c 

CO 

& 

CD 
X 

e 

o 

> 

Q 


£ 
S 

CD 
Z 
- 

a> 

LU 


CD 
C 
O 

I 
< 

o 


ra 

e 

e 

a3 
Q_ 

s 


O 
CD 

o 

"S 

c 



5 
ra 


2 
DO 




i/5 






CO 


T 


CO 


ID 


N 


CO 


~ 


o 










m 


'D 




CO 


cr> 


o 




CI 




rj 


CN 


< 

O 

\- 



S E 



■C O T- 



ra =, =. 



■5 « 



oo <° 

CJ CM 



£™£S±„-^ : 



5 J2 



00 



CD O CU CD 



fn 


< 


0J 


c 
o 


c 


CU 




o 




a 












3 
















CJ 






















CD 
09 


"3 


15 

5 





o 


2 

00 


CO 
OJ 

E 


5 
o 


o 

£3 




^ 


a 
























n 




c 

o 


o 

03 


0J 

5 


-Q 

F 


o 


ca 

C7j 


o 


03 

a 


U 

D 


£ 


H 


^ 


e 


CD 


f 


2 


cz 


C 






























Ifl 


'JJ 




CO 



1^ 



Attachment II 
Pap.e 1 of 2 



File Number: 

(Provided by Clerk of Board of Supervisors) 

Grant Information Form 

(Effective January 2000) 

Purpose: Accompanies proposed Board of Supervisors resolutions authorizing a 
Department to accept and expend grant funds. 

The following describes the grant referred to in the accompanying resolution: 

1. Grant Title: Illegal Dumping Abatement grant 

2. Department: Public Works 

3. Contact Person: Douglas Legg Telephone: 554-4806 

4. Grant Approval Status (check one): 

[] Approved by funding agency X Not yet approved 

5. Amount of Grant Funding Approved or Applied for: $ 500,000 

6a. Matching Funds Required: $ 
b. Source(s) of matching funds (if applicable): 

7a. Grant Source Agency: California Integrated Waste Management Board7 
b. Grant Pass-Through Agency (if applicable): 

8. Proposed Grant Project Summary: 

Illegal Dumping Abatement 

The City will target 25 of the 38 chronic illegal dumpsites the Department has 
identified for clean up, mitigation, public education and outreach, enforcement, and 
monitoring, to eliminate the sites as illegal dumping locations. The grant will 
supplement General Fund and Gas Tax appropriations for the Bureau of Street 
Environmental Services 

9. Grant Project Schedule, as allowed in approval documents, or as proposed: 

Start-Date: July 1 , 2001 End-Date: June 30, 2004 

10. Number of new positions created and funded: -0- 

11. If new positions are created, explain the disposition of employees once the grant 
ends? 



Attachment I'. 
Pa°;e 2 of 2 



12a. Amount budgeted for contractual services: $0 

b. Will contractual services be put out to bid? 

c. If so, will contract services help to further the goals of the department's MBE/WBE 

requirements? 

d. Is this likely to be a one-time or ongoing request for contracting out? One-time 



13a. Does the budget include indirect costs? 

b1 . If yes, how much? $ 

b2. How was the amount calculated? 

c. If no, why are indirect costs not included? 
[X] Not allowed by granting agency 
on direct services 

[ ] Other (please explain): 



[] Yes 



[X] No 



[ ] To maximize use of grant funds 



14. Any other significant grant requirements or comments: 



"Disability Access Checklist*** 

15. This Grant is intended for activities at (check all that apply): 



[X] Existing Site(s) 
Program(s) or Service(s) 
[ ] Rehabilitated Site(s) 
Service(s) 
[] NewSite(s) 



] Existing Structure(s) 
] Rehabilitated Structure(s) 
' ] New Structure(s) 



Existing 

New Program(s) or 



16. The Departmental ADA Coordinator and/or the Mayor's Office on Disability have 
reviewed the proposal and concluded that the project as proposed will be in compliance 
with the Americans with Disabilities Act and all other Federal, State and local access 
laws and regulations and will allow the full inclusion of persons with disabilities, or will 
require unreasonable^iardship exceptions, as described in the comments section: 



Departmental oyMayor's ^nrfice^f Di 
Reviewer: / Y /-^ 




Susan Ferreyra 



Date Reviewed: 



Department Approval 




16 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 3 - 02-0096 



Department: 



Item: 



Health Services System (HSS) 
Department of Human Resources (DHR) 

Resolution establishing the monthly contribution amount 
to be made to the Health Service Trust Fund by the City 
and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Unified 
School District, and the San Francisco Community 
College District for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. 



Description: 



The proposed resolution would establish the dollar 
amount of the employer's contribution to be made to the 
Health Service Trust Fund by the City and County of San 
Francisco (City), the San Francisco Unified School 
District (SFUSD), and the San Francisco Communitv 
College District (SFCCD) for FY 2002-2003. 

The Health Services Board and the City and County 
Health Services System, as required by Charter Sections 
A8.423 and A8.428, have surveyed the ten most populous 
counties in the State, excluding San Francisco, to 
determine the average dollar contribution made by these 
counties toward each employee's medical care insurance, 
excluding dental and optical care insurance. According to 
Mr. Bob Hencier of HSS, the survey was completed in mid 
December 2001. 

In accordance with the Charter, this resolution would 
establish the FY 2002-2003 monthly contribution rate for 
health care insurance to be paid by the City, the SFUSD, 
and the SFCCD, at $246.69 per month ($2,960.28 
annually) for each eligible, active employee, based on the 
survey results of the average payment made by the ten 
most populous counties in California (excluding San 
Francisco) as shown in the following table of most to least 
populous county: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Average Contributed 

Countv Monthly Amount 

Los Angeles $250.97 

Orange 390.87 

San Diego 179.96 

San Bernadino 223.35 

Santa Clara 236.73 

Riverside 223.72 

Alameda 218.30 

Sacramento 259.84 

Contra Costa 209.84 

Fresno 273.35 

Total $2,466.93 

Average $246.69 

According to HSS, the ten-county survey for FY 2002- 
2003 indicates that the average employer contribution of 
the ten most populous counties in California (excluding 
San Francisco) is $246.69 per month ($2,960.28 annually) 
per employee, excluding dental and optical care 
insurance. The City's current FY 2001-2002 contribution 
is $213.93 monthly ($2,567.16 annually) per employee. 
The proposed resolution would establish $246.69 as the 
monthly per employee contribution to be made in FY 
2002-2003 by the City, SFUSD, and SFCCD for the health 
insurance costs of their employees. The proposed monthly 
rate of $246.69 ($2,960.28 annually) for FY 2002-2003 
represents an increase of $32.76 per month or 
approximately 15.3 percent from the $213.93 monthly 
rate currently contributed in FY 2001-2002. 

Comments: 1. The proposed 15.3 percent increase exceeds the 11.3 

percent increase from FY 2000-2001 to FY 2001-2002 and 
is the most significant proposed increase in the monthly 
contribution since FY 1990-1991 when it was 16.3 
percent. During the last decade, the annual survey of the 
other counties has resulted in average monthly 
contributions that increased minimally in most years and 
even decreased m FY 1995-1996 and FY 1996-1997. FY 
2001-2002 resulted in an 11.3 percent rise in average 
contributions followed by the current proposed increase of 
15.3 percent for FY 2002-2003. According to Mr. Hencier, 
the significant proposed increase for FY 2002-2003 
reflects the rising cost of health care coverage. Mr. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Hencier also notes that the rising cost is consistent with 
the marketplace for health care coverage as reported to 
HSS by Kaiser and Healthnet. 

2. According to Mr. Hencier, the total current membership 
in HSS is approximately 39,726, which consists of 1) 
29,160 active City and County employees, 2) 8,503 active 
SFUSD employees, and 3) 2,063 active SFCCD employees. 
Mr. Hencier reports that based on the current 29,160 
active City and County employees, the estimated City and 
County contribution cost for FY 2002-2003 would be 
$86,321,765 (29,160 x $246.69/month x 12 months), of 
which an estimated $60,789,349, or 70.4 percent would 
represent General Fund monies. 

3. As previously noted, the City's contribution for health 
care coverage in FY 2002-2003 is equal to the average 
contribution of the ten most populous counties in 
California, excluding San Francisco, as determined by an 
HSS survey taken in mid December 2001. Given that the 
surveyed counties may subsequently increase or decrease 
their actual contributions for FY 2002-2003, San 
Francisco's contribution may, in fact, be greater or less 
than the actual average contributions to be provided by 
the ten counties in FY 2002-2003. However, because HSS 
is required by the Charter to collect the comparative data 
in January of each year, HSS is not able to set its FY 
2002-2003 rates based on the final FY 2002-2003 rates of 
the other ten surveyed counties. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 4 - File 02-0100 

Department: 

Item: 

Description: 



Comments: 



Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector 

Resolution authorizing the Tax Collector to sell at public 
auction 91 parcels of tax-defaulted real property. 

According to State law, if a property owner does not pay 
Property Taxes in any one year, the owner is then 
considered to be in default. The property owner then has 
five years to repay the defaulted tax amount or to apply 
for an installment payment plan. If the delinquent 
amount is not repaid in full within five years from the 
date that the Property Taxes became delinquent, or if the 
property owner has not initiated an installment payment 
plan or has defaulted on an installment payment, then 
the State grants authority to the Tax Collector to sell the 
property. 

In order to conduct such a public auction, the Tax 
Collector must receive authorization from the Board of 
Supervisors and the State Controller's Office. The 
proposed resolution would authorize the Tax Collector to 
sell certain tax-defaulted properties. 

1. Mr. Francis Nguyen of the Tax Collector's Office 
advises that 91 properties would be offered at the 
proposed auction. A copy of the list of properties to be 
auctioned, together with their minimum bid amounts, is 
on file with the Clerk of the Board. According to Mr. 
Nguyen, the last public auction of tax-defaulted property 
occurred in March of 2000. 

2. According to Mr. Nguyen, the properties to be sold at 
the proposed auction consist of 88 residential properties, 
two commercial properties and one industrial property, 
for a total of 91 properties. 

3. As shown in the Attachment, provided by Mr. Nguyen, 
the total estimated minimum proceeds from the sale of 
the 91 properties would be $710,602.82. Mr. Nguyen 
reports that of the $710,602.82 to be paid by the high 
bidders. $710,466.32 would be credited to the City's 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



General Fund upon sale of the tax-defaulted properties, 
and $136.50 would be paid to the State. Any additional 
proceeds realized from the sale of such properties would 
revert to the property owners or to other parties of 
interest such as lien-holders. 

4. According to Mr. Nguyen, after the Board of 
Supervisors has approved this proposed resolution, the 
State Controller's Office would be requested by the Tax 
Collector's Office to also authorize the proposed public 
auction in order to comply with State law. Subsequent to 
receiving approval from the State, the list of properties to 
be sold at the public auction would be made available to 
interested parties (persons who have contacted the Tax 
Collector's Office to inquire about public auctions). 
Additionally, the public auction would be advertised once 
a week for three consecutive weeks in the San Francisco 
Independent. The newspaper advertisement would 
contain the time and date of the public auction and 
instructions as to how to obtain the list of the properties 
to be auctioned. Mr. Nguyen anticipates that the public 
auction would take place April 26, 2002. 

5. Mr. Nguyen advises that the Tax Collector is required 
to notify property owners who are in default, by certified 
mail, that such property owners are required to pay their 
delinquent Property Taxes in full in order to prevent then- 
property from being sold at a public auction. This 
notification, pertaining to the subject 91 properties to be 
sold at public auction, was sent to each of the property 
owners in September of 2001, according to Mr. Nguyen. 
Mr. Nguyen advises that default notices and notices 
included in the Property Tax bill were also previously 
sent annually to each of the 91 property owners for the 
past five years. Upon receiving authorization from the 
Board of Supervisors and the State Controller's Office, the 
Tax Collector will also notify by personal contact, each of 
the property owners and/or occupants cf each property 
slated for public auction that the property is in default 
and full payment of delinquent Property Taxes is required 
in order to prevent their property from being sold at 
public auction. According to Mr. Nguyen, property 
owners have the option to repay all of the delinquent 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



taxes in full up until the close of business on the day prior 
to the proposed public auction. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

22 



Attachment I 



Office Of The Treasurer/Tax Collector 



City and County of San Francisco 

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 7426 ♦> San Francisco, CA 94120-7426 

Street Address: 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett, City Hall, Room 140 ♦> San Francisco, CA 94102 




January 24, 2002 
MEMORANDUM 



SUSAN LEAL, Treasurer 
Phone: (415) 554-4478 

GEORGE PUTRIS, Tax Administrator 
Phone:(415)554-4874 



TO: Harvey Rose 

Budget Analyst 
FROM: Francis T. Nguyen 

Manager, Property Tax/License 
SUBJECT: Public Auction Sale of Tax-Defaulted Properties 

Per your request, here is a breakdown of the total anticipated revenue collection from the 
public auction sale of tax-defaulted properties to be held on Friday, April 26, 2002. This 
total revenue collection (total amount of minimum bids) will be deposited to the county 
general fund except for the SI 36.50 to be distributed to the State of California. 



Advertising j 
Cost 


Sales Fees 


1 Notice 
Cost 


Redemption 
Amount 


Current 
Taxes 


MINIMUM 


State 


County 


BID 



$4,140.50 $136.50 $13,650.00 $3,185.00 $629,465.07 $60,025.75 $710,602.82 

Advertising Cost: Publication cost. Advertising the sale of tax-defaulted properties 
in the newspaper (545.50 for each parcel). 



Sales Fees: 

1. State: 

2. County: 



For each property sold at public auction, SI .50 goes to the State. 
The cost of conducting the sale (SI 50.00 for each parcel). 



Notice Cost: Cost of giving notices (S35.00 for each parcel). 

Redemption Amount: Total amount of all unpaid defaulted taxes, delinquent 

penalties and redemption penalties plus the redemption fee (SI 5.00) and other additional 
fees and costs such as the cost of obtaining the names and addresses of parties of interest 
and for mailing notices to these entities for each parcel (SI 44.50), fee for recording notice 
of power to sale (S3 5. 00), fee for releasing notice of power to sale ($1 1.00) and the cost 
of personal contact (SI 00) for any property with a valid homeowner's exemption. 



Current Taxes: 



Taxes owed on the current Fiscal Year 2001-2002. 



Minimum Bid: 



Minimum selling price for each parcel. 



23 



/. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 5 - File 02-0046 

Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
January 23, 2002. 



Department: 
Item: 

Location: 

Purpose of Lease: 

Lessor: 
Lessee: 



Real Estate Division 

Resolution authorizing and approving a lease for cellular 
transmitter space at Fire Station 30 (inactive) at 1300 4 th 
Street to Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company dba AT&T 
Wireless. 

Fire Station 30 is located at 1300 4 th Street, on the 
southwest corner of 3 rd Street (Assessor's Block 3837, Lot 
4). 

To allow Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company dba AT&T 
Wireless to locate cellular telephone transmitters on City- 
owned facilities. 

City and County of San Francisco 

Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company 



No. of Sq. Ft. and 
Monthly and Annual 
Rent Payable by 

Lessee to the City: Approximately 12 square feet at $1,200 per month ($14,400 
annually) 

Term of Five Lease: Five years expected to commence as of March 15, 2002 and 
to expire on March 14, 2007, five years after the 
commencement date. 



Right of Renewal: 



Rent Adjustment: 



Under the terms of the proposed lease, the lessee would 
have the option of one additional term of five years. 

At the anniversary date of each lease, anticipated to begin 
on March 15, 2003, and for the remaining four years of each 
of the proposed leases, the base rent will be adjusted 
annually by the annual percentage increase in the 
Consumer Price Index (CPI). The monthly base rent on or 
after the adjustment date cannot be less than the monthly 
base rent in effect immediately prior to the adjustment 
date. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Utilities and 
Janitorial 
Provided by Lessee: 

Tenant 
Improvements: 



Description: 



Comments: 



Additionally, prior to the exercise of the five-year options, 
the base rent would be adjusted to equal the fair market 
rent of the subject property. This adjustment would be 
determined by the Real Estate Division (RED), using a 
market survey approach for comparable space leased for 
cellular telephone transmitters. 



Lessee pays for the cost of all utilities and janitorial 
services for each of the proposed five leases. 

Upon commencement of the subject leases, Bay Area 
Cellular Telephone Company will install, solely at its cost, 
the necessary cellular transmitter equipment at the City- 
owned facility. 

The proposed resolution would authorize a five-year lease 
between the City and Bay Area Cellular Telephone 
Company for ground space adjacent to Fire Station 30, 
located on 1300 4 th Street. 

Under the subject lease, and Bay Area Cellular Telephone 
Company proposes to construct and maintain 1) one 
equipment cabinet on the Station's site, 2) one battery pack 
on the Station's site, and 3) up to two antennae attached to 
the side of the fire house. According to Mr. Larry Jacobson 
of RED, the equipment cabinet will relay telephone signals 
to and from cellular phone users, while the battery pack 
will supply emergency power. The approximate service 
area would be a short portion of 3 rd Street, south of Mission 
Creek. 

1. According to Mr. Jacobson, the proposed rental rate 
represents RED's current rates for cellular communication 
site leases and is considered to represent fair market value. 
Attachment I, provided by Mr. Jacobson, explains the basis 
of the rent to be charged for the proposed lease. According 
to Mr. Jacobson, the rental value of cellular transmission 
space is based upon the service provided to cellular phone 
users and the amount of potential phone traffic at specific 
locations, and is not based upon the number of square feet 
at the transmitter site. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

2. Mr. Jacobson advises that RED is not required to conduct 
a competitive bidding process for awarding leases for 
cellular transmitter space because it would be impractical. 
Mr. Jacobson notes that the selection of lessees are in 
accordance with Chapter 23, Section 23.30 of the 
Administrative Code, which states, "The Director of 
Property shall arrange for such Lease to the highest 
responsible bidder in accordance with Competitive Bidding 
Procedures, unless... such Competitive Bidding Procedures 
are impractical or impossible...", Mr. Jacobson states that 
Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company requested the 
subject site as part of its cellular coverage plan, for cellular 
transmitter space as is the standard procedure. 
Attachment II, provided by Mr. Jacobson, is a memo 
describing the impractical nature to request bids for 
cellular transmitter space. 

3. Mr. Jacobson reports that according to the Notice of 
Special Restrictions under Article 7, Section 174 of the City 
Planning Code, the proposed lease site has been reviewed 
by Hammett & Edison Inc., a certified professional 
engineer retained by Bay Area Cellular. Mr. Jacobson 
reports that Hammett & Edison has reviewed the Bay Area 
Cellular Telephone Company radio frequency emissions, 
and has determined that the proposed site is in compliance 
with radio wave requirements set by the Federal 
Communications Commission and the America National 
Standards Institute (ANSI), a nonprofit organization that 
administers and coordinates multi-industry standards. 

4. The proposed resolution authorizes the Director of 
Property to "...enter into any amendments or modifications 
to the Lease... that the Director of Property determines, in 
consultation with the City Attorney, are in the best interest 
to the City, do not increase the rent or otherwise materially 
increase the obligations or liabilities of the City, are 
necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of the 
Lease or this resolution, and are in compliance with all 
applicable laws, including City's Charter." 

5. At the meeting of January 23, 2002, the Finance 
Committee requested further detail on future plans for the 
Fire Station 30 facility. Attachment III is a memorandum 
from Mr. Jacobson responding to the inquiry of the Finance 
Committee. The memorandum notes that the lease 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Memo to Finance Committee 

January 30, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

"includes a special provision that will terminate the lease 
anytime the City receives a demolition permit for the 
subject building." As of the writing of this report, the Real 
Estate Division had not provided the Budget Analyst with a 
copy of that lease provision. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 




^7 



larvey M. Rose 



Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Daly 
Supervisor Maxwell 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 
Ted Lakey 



ROARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



City and County of San Francisco 




Attachment I 
Page 1 of 1 

Real Estate Division 
Department of Administrative Services 



Attachment 1 



MEMORANDUM 




DATE: January 23, 2002 

TO: Leanne Nhan 

Budget Analyst's Office 



FROM: Larry Jacobson 

Real Estate Division 



SUBJECT: Cell Phone Transmitter Rental Rate at Fire Station 30 



Tnis memorandum is to inform you of the fee currently applied to the Station 30 cell phone 
transmitter site. This site is large enough for a second and in some cases, a third cell phone 
company to co-locate and place transmitters and antennae in operation. Co-location cannot 
occur without Planning and Board of Supervisor approval. 

• AT&T will pay S 1 ,200.00 per month rent. This site provides micro coverage for a 
fraction of a square mile; specifically a three or four blocks coverage area along Third 
Street in the Mission Bay redevelopment area. 



If you have any questions please call me at 554-9S63. 



1/U/CellPh Transmtr Rer.il2_3udg-.Ar.al>* 



28 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 1 



City and County of San Francisco 




Real Estate Division 



Administrative Services Department 



Attachment 2 



M EMOR A N D U M 



DATE: 


January 15, 2002 


TO: 


Leanne Nhan 

Budget Analyst's Office 


FROM: 


Larry Jacobson 

Senior Real Property Officer 


SUBJECT: 


Siting Cellular Phone Transrr 



Reason it is impractical to request bids 



Each cellular phone company establishes its own set of ceils; each cell covers a finite 
geographic area. The area of the cell, generally round, is affected by both topograohv and 
the amount of telephone traffic within any geographic area. 

Cellular phone companies have different cell configurations. The cellular phone company, 
based upon its cell configuration, determines where to place the transmitter and antennae 
and approaches the property owner. 

lhc City and County of San Francisco can often accommodate cell phone companies on 
City property - but not always. There may be problems such as finding space for the 
transmitter equipment, 24-hour access, proximity to neighboring apartment houses, etc. 
Since cellular phone companies have differing needs for siting cell phone transmitters, i: is 
impractical to request bids for a specific site since generally only one company has an 
interest in a selected site. 

Finally, FCC requirements provide for co-location of ceil phone equipment. The 
companies doing business in San Francisco have approached the City on a number of 
occasions seeking co-location. The Metro PCS application en Fire Station 15 at 1000 
Ocean Avenue is a co-location site. 



' CriiH-. fcHums Siting icriA-.l 1C02 



•15) 55-i-SSSO 

AX: (415) 552-9215 

4102 



29 

Offics of the Director cf Property 
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 400 



San Francisco, CA 



City and County of San Francisco 




Attachment II" 
Page 1 of 1 

Real Estate Division 
Department of Administrative Services 



Attachment 3 



M EMOR A N D U M 



January 24, 2002 



TO: Leanne Nnan 

Budget Analyst's Office 



FROM: Larry Jacobson 

Real Estate Division 



y,/ t ^~^-*' 



SUBJECT: Future of Fire Station 30 



A specific plan for Fire Station 30 at 1300 4 th Street has not been established. The Mission 
Bay plan includes a plan for police/fire facility to be constructed at the site. The construction 
is predicated upon a land transfer, funding for construction and the completion of 1000 
residential units in the southern portion of the Mission Bay area. The current projected time 
when this proposed facility will become operational is 2012 or later. 

The subject lease with BACTC dba AT&T Wireless includes a special provision that will 
terminate the lease anytime the City receives a demolition permit for the subject building. 



!/U/firesm30 :'u:jrc cf 



30 



City and County of San Francisco Cit y Hal1 

J J 1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Meeting Minutes Goodiett piace 

San Francisco, CA 

Finance Committee 94102^68° 

Members: Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly 

Clerk: Gail Johnson 

Wednesday, February 06, 2002 12:30 PM City Hall, Room 263 

Regular Meeting 

Members Present: Aaron Peskin, Chris Daly, Sophie Maxwell. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 12:37 p.m. 

011981 [Urban Forest] 

Supervisor Ammiano 

Hearing on the financial resources needed to make certain that our urban forest continues to grow, is 
maintained, and can continue to provide benefits for all San Franciscans. 
10/29/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Ammiano; Milton Marks, Executive Director, Friends of the 
Urban Forest; Paul Sacamano, Urbran Forester, Department of Public Works; Dr. Greg McPherson, 
Director of the Western Center for Urban Forest Research, USDA, Forest Service in Davis; Jarred 
Blumenfeld, Director, Department of the Environment; Catherine Sneed, Executive Director, the Garden 
Project; Terry Milne, member, Bernal Heights Tree Committee; Carolyn Blair, Executive Director, San 
Francisco Tree Council. 
FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



012159 [San Francisco Water Alliance] 
Supervisor Leno 

Hearing to consider the progress of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's contract revisions with the 

San Francisco Water Alliance. 

12/3/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Supervisor Leno requests that this item be referred to the Finance 

Committee. 

12/19/01, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Patricia Martel, General Manager, Public Utilities 

Commission; Leslie Abbott, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21. 

Speakers: None, 
Continued to 2/13/02. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco I Printed at f:>~ I'M on ! ' t)J 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes February 6, 2002 



011774 [Reserved Funds, S.F. Environment] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, S.F. Environment (State grant funds, File No. 01 1431: 

Resolution No. 647-01), in the amount of $6.75 million to fund the Power Booster small business energy 

efficiency retrofit program. (Environment) 

10/3/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the October 17, 2001 

meeting. 

10/17/01, CONTINUED. Speakers: None. Continued to October 31, 2001. 

10/31/01, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speaker: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Jarred Blumenfeld, Director. Department of 

the Environment. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $4,461,317 approved. 

APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



012236 [Appropriation - District Attorney] 
Mayor 

Ordinance appropriating, retroactively, $260,144 from the General Fund Reserve to provide funding for the 
court ordered change of venue for the case of People of State of California v. Knoller, et al. for the District 
Attorney for fiscal year 2001-02. (Mayor) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

12/17/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

1/23/02, AMENDED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Teresa Serata, District Attorney's Office. 

Amended on page 1 , line 3, by replacing "$275,237" with "retroactively, 5228,587;" on line 7, after "appropriated," by adding 

"retroactively;" and on line 16, by replacing "$275,237" with "$228,587." Amended on page 2, line 15, by replacing "$61,600" with 

"$31,700;" and on line 19, by replacing "$20,000" with "$3,250." Further amended on page 3, line 18. by replacing "S275.237" with 

"$228,587." New title. 

1/23/02, RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED. 

1/28/02, AMENDED. Supervisor Peskin moved, seconded by Supervisor Maxwell to amend. 

1/28/2002 - Amended on page 1, line 3, by replacing "$228,587" with $260,144" and on page 1 , line 24, by replacing "$16,740" with 

"$53,743". Amended on page 2, line 9, by replacing "$1,298" with "$7,851" and on page 2, line 13, by replacing "$12,000" with "0". 

Amended on page 3, line 18, by replacing "$228,587" with "$260,144". 

1/28/02, RE-REFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst: Teresa Serata, District Attorney.s Office. 

Amended on page 1, lines 3 and 16, by replacing "$260, 144" with "$259,257: " on line 24, by replacing 

"$53,743" with "$53,034." Amended on page 2, line 9, by replacing "$7,851" with "$7,673." Further 

amended on page 3, line 18, by replacing "$260,144" with "$259,257." New title. 

AMENDED. 

Ordinance appropriating, retroactively, $259,257 from the General Fund Reserve to provide funding for the 

court ordered change of venue for the case of People of State of California v. Knoller, et al. for the District 

Attorney for fiscal year 2001-02. (Mayor) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 5:5" PM on 3/2/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



February 6, 2002 



020098 [Reserved Funds, Public Health Department] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved Funds, Department of Public Health (Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Budget), 
in the amount of $100,000 to fund the Shanti Lifelines breast cancer pilot project. (Public Health Department) 
1/16/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, 
Department of Public Health. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $100,000 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 






020125 [Reserved Funds, Treasure Island Project] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Treasure Island Project (fiscal year 2001-2002 budget), in the 
amount of $338,575 for salaries and fringe benefits consistent with other City Departments/Special Assistants 
included in the Citywide Management Classification/Compensation Plan (MCCP). (Mayor) 
1/22/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Annemarie Conroy, Executive Director, 
Treasure Island Development Authority. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $67, 715 approved. (1/5 of funds requested) approved. 
Consideration of remainder ($270,860) continued to the Call of the Chair. 
Title of hearing amended by replacing "$338,575" with "$270,860. " 
AMENDED. 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Treasure Island Project (fiscal year 2001-2002 budget), in the 
amount of $270,860 for salaries and fringe benefits consistent with other City Departments/Special Assistants 
included in the Citywide Management Classification/Compensation Plan (MCCP). (Mayor) 
CONTINUED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 1:38 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 



'ited at 5:5~ P\l on i 2 OJ 



CITY AND COUNTY 




[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 

Of 5AIN tKAfsClSUU 



^BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



January 31, 2002 

TO: ^.Finance Committee 

FROM: * Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 
FEB - 4 2002 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Item 3 - File 01-1774 



Note: This item was continued by the Finance Committee at its meeting of 
October 31, 2001. 



Department: 
Item: 

Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Budget: 



Department of the Environment (DOE) 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $6,750,000 to fund the Power Boosters 
Program. 

$6,750,000 

Grant funds from the California Public Utilities 
Commission in the total amount $7,800,000, approved by 
the Board of Supervisors in August of 2001, of which 
87,258,920 was placed on reserve pending submission of 
additional budget details and the contract award. 

A summary budget for the total contract amount of 
$6,749,999 is as follows: 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Administration 

Marketing $306,000 

Program 

Audits 1,364,000 

Installations 502,100 

Project Performance 4,577.899 

Total Contract $6,749,999 

Attachment I, provided by the DOE, provides budget 
details in the amount of $6,749,999. Attachment II, 
provided by DOE provides further details on the budgeted 
amounts and program components. 

Description: The subject $6,750,000 in reserved funds would fund the 

Power Boosters Program, designed to help small business 
owners improve energy efficiency thus reducing their own 
energy costs. In August of 2001, the Board of Supervisors 
authorized the DOE to expend a grant in the amount of 
$7,800,000 from the California Public Utilities 
Commission (CPUC) but placed $7,258,920 of the grant 
funds on reserve, pending submission of details on the 
program budget and on the selected contractor, including 
the hours and hourly rates of the contractor (File 01- 
1431). A resolution authorizing the acceptance of the 
subject grant was approved by the Board of Supervisors in 
July of 2001. The DOE had requested early approval of 
acceptance of the grant so that it could sign the State 
grant award prior to the August 1, 2001 deadline to 
accept the grant (File 01-1322). According to Mr. Cal 
Broomhead of DOE, the Department has selected a 
contractor and has finalized a contract in the amount of 
$6,749,979 with the contractor, Newcomb Anderson 
Associates. The contractor selection and the contract 
budget have been approved by the CPUC. Therefore the 
DOE is now requesting that the $6,750,000 in reserved 
funds be released. 

Under the Power Boosters Program, energy efficiency 
audits of small businesses are to be conducted and then 
technical assistance are to be provided for improving the 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

energy efficiency of participating businesses. According to 
Mr. Broomhead, under the Power Boosters Program, 
Newcomb Anderson Associates, a consulting engineering 
firm that specializes in achieving energy efficiencies, will 
conduct an estimated 6,360 small business energy audits 
and will assist an estimated 3,960 small businesses in 
increasing energy efficiency in an effort to reduce the 
number of kilowatts used by the small businesses. Mr. 
Broomhead advises that if the energy efficiency goals are 
met, the Program should save an estimated 18,000,000 
kilowatt hours per year, with a value of approximately 
$3,600,000 annually based on the current commercial 
retail price of $0.20 per kilowatt hour multiplied by 
18,000,000 kilowatt hours saved. Based on installations at 
3,960 small businesses, each business will achieve 
average energy savings of $900 per small business. In 
addition, Mr. Broomhead advises that if energy efficiency 
goals are met, the Program should save an estimated 
5,940 kilowatt load for the small businesses. 

Under the proposed contract, the selected contractor and 
the subcontractors retained by Newcomb Anderson 
Associates, would provide the following services: (a) 
design standards, procedures and protocols for the audit 
and installation components of the program; (b) develop a 
marketing plan; (c) assist the DOE in selecting businesses 
and marketing the program; (d) conduct energy efficiency 
audits of approximately 6,360 businesses; (e) provide price 
estimates for energy-saving recommendations; (f) provide 
construction management services for each installation of 
the new energy saving equipment, such as high efficiency 
lamps, daylight controls for interior spaces, and photocells 
to control exterior lighting; and (g) complete a program 
evaluation at the conclusion of the Early Rollout Pilot 
Program. (See Comment No. 3) 

Comments: 1. The budget for the proposed contract with Newcomb 

Anderson Associates is shown in Attachment I. Mr. 
Broomhead reports that DOE selected Newcomb 
Anderson Associates for the $6,749,999 contract through 
a Request for Proposals (RFP) process. Mr. Broomhead 
states that the Request for Proposal was submitted to 14 
firms and that three firms responded to the RFP: (a) 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Newcomb Anderson Associates, (b) Aspen Systems 
Corporation, and (c) ICF Consulting. DOE provides 
further details on the RFP process in Attachment III. As 
shown in Attachment III, Newcomb Anderson Associates 
received the highest score of 86.33. Attachment IV 
includes estimated hours and hourly rates for Newcomb 
Anderson Associates and the subcontractors. A list of all 
subcontractors to Newcomb Anderson Associates is 
included in Attachment V. 

2. Attachment VI, provided by Mr. Broomhead shows the 
following bids: a) Aspen Systems Corporation for 
$2,233,800, (b) Newcomb Anderson Associates for 
$3,021,100, and (c) ICF Consulting for $3,484,900 and 
provides further detail on the selection process and 
contract calculation. 

3. According to Mr. Broomhead, the $6,749,999 contract 
for the Power Boosters Program was formulated by the 
CPUC and any changes to the budget would be subject to 
approval by the CPUC. Mr. Broomhead reports that the 
CPUC structured $4,577,899 ($2,289,217 plus $2,288,682, 
see Attachment I) of the $6,749,999 budget based on 
achievement of performance goals rather than hours of 
work performed. The budget includes $4,577,899 for 
Project Performance Payments to be paid to Newcomb 
Anderson Associates for meeting the performance goals 
specified in the contract as explained in Attachment VI. 
As shown in Attachment I, the contractor will receive 
$578.09 for every completed installation of new energy 
saving equipment at small businesses. If the contractor 
meets its goal of completing 3,960 installations it will 
receive an estimated total of $2,289,217 in performance 
payments. Similarly, the contractor will receive $385.30 
for every kilowatt saved by the installation of new energy 
saving equipment in the participating small businesses. 
Therefore, if the installations of new energy saving 
equipment contracted by Newcomb Anderson Associates 
result in the savings of 5,940 kilowatts, it will receive a 
total of $2,288,682. Mr. Broomhead states that this 
structure was designed to provide an incentive to the 
contractor to complete small business installations and to 
deliver kilowatt savings. Mr. Broomhead further reports 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

4 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



that Newcomb xAnderson Associates may pass on a portion 
or all of the Project Performance Payments to the 
subcontractors and to the small business owners as 
incentives for participation in the Power Boosters 
Program. 

4. Mr. Broomhead advises that Newcomb Anderson 
Associates was previously selected for the $200,000 Early 
Rollout Pilot Program under the Power Boosters Program, 
which includes performing energy efficiency audits and 
helping implement new energy saving methods for 
approximately 40 small businesses. The Early Rollout 
Program was funded from the subject Grant Funds 
previously released for expenditure by the Board of 
Supervisors. The Early Rollout pilot projects will be used 
as examples when promoting the proposed Power 
Boosters Program. The services under the Early Rollout 
Pilot Program are being performed through two 
workorders to the Department of Public Works (DPW) for 
a total of $211,000. Mr. Roger Wong of DPW states that 
DPW awarded the $211,000 contract for the work on a 
sole source basis to Newcomb Anderson Associates, 
because Newcomb Anderson Associates was currently 
performing similar work under contract with DPW. DPW 
originally selected Newcomb Anderson Associates for a 
$500,000 contract to assess energy efficiency and manage 
installation of efficiency equipment in City recreational 
facilities through a competitive Request for Proposals 
process in 1998, according to Mr. Wong. Mr. Broomhead 
provides further details on the Early Rollout pilot in 
Attachment VII. 

5. The Budget Analyst recommends that reserved funds 
in the amount of $4,461,317 be released to allow the DOE 
to implement the Power Boosters Program and allow for 
project performance payments for site installations. The 
Budget Analyst recommends that the balance of 
$2,288,683 ($6,750,000 less $4,461,317) continue to be 
reserved for the monies budgeted to pay the contractor, 
Newcomb Anderson Associates, for project performance 
payments for kilowatts delivered, pending the 
achievement of the subject project performance goals and 
submission of a detailed report to the Board of 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Supervisors pertaining to the kilowatts saved as a result 
of the Power Boosters Program. 

Recommendations: 1. Approve the release of reserved funds in the amount of 

$4,461,317, as discussed in Comment No. 5 above. 

2. Continue to reserve $2,288,683, pending the 
submission of a detailed report to the Board of 
Supervisors as to project performance results, as 
discussed in Comment No. 5 above. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

6 



Attachment I 





O 








en 


o 
















en 


















CD 




O 








O) 


o 
















o 


















C7) 




O 








CD 


o 
















G) 


















en 


3 


CD 








co 


<*" 
















en" 


















en" 


O 








-g- 


CD 
















m 


















■^r 


o 


CO 








t_ 


CO 
















o 


















r<-. 


H 


fe9- 








co" 
fee 


fee 
















in 
fee 


















co" 
fee- 






o 


o 


o 






o 


o 


o 


O 


o 


a 


o 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


r^ 


CM 


en 






fee 


a 


&e 






o 


o 


o 


a 


o 


a 


o 




o 


o 


o 


o 


o 


o 




CC 


en 








o 








o 


o_ 


CM 


CO 


o_ 


o 


o 




c 


CO 


o 


o_ 


in 


CD 


CN 


CD 


°°. 


75 






CD 








o" 


o* 


N-' 


o" 


o" 


o 


co" 




o 


in 


o" 


in 


T— " 


o" 


en" 


CO 


N 


o 






O 








CNI 


N 


CD 


o 


CN 


CM 


CO 




CD 


N 


CO 


I*- 


03 


CM 


CO 


CO 


t^ 






m 










69 


fee 






CM 


CD 




fee 


fee 


fee 




fee 


te- 


<N 


CN 


in 


S 






fee 








<=e 






fee 


fee 


fee 


fee- 










fee 






CNj" 


cm" 


■si- 










































fee 


fee 


fee 




























o 
















o 


o 




U) 


























CO 
















CD 


•sT 




























CO 
















en 


CD 




'E 

3 


























CO 

o 
o 
















co" 

en 
p 


in" 

o 
ro 




S 


























5- 
















co' 


iri 




CD 








































N- 


CO 












































m 


co 














































fee- fee 





o 



Cfl 

cr: 

HI 

> 
< 

CO 

LU 

o 
a, 

O 
o 

CO 

O 

z 
< 



ra 



oi 



oi 



| | I 

CD CO O 

O S 2 



cr £ _ 
o ^ c 
< 



e E £ 



® c 5 = ra 



CO 


!/) 




flf 


o 




o 


3 


CO 


^ 






_l 


u 


cr 


'5 






o 


r- 






ce 

E 






- 

a 


l/l 








ca 




~ 


— 


Cfl 


■a 


— . 


- 


3 


3 


3 






< 


< 


u 


< 


— 


< 



J2 ~ 

° 5 w 

u 5 C 

— - 2 

o o <-> 

fc i; CO 



CD 

CD 

Q. 

o in 
° c 

a a 

.1 |"§ -a 

■a ra = cd 

_ s q- a as 

n = 0) in > 

c ~ o c =■ 

— ^ c — CD 

£££!£> 

S £ S .g w - 

_ .= CO o o 

o u_ d b a. 
^ oO o o 
o .co 75 - " 



12 3 o 



o '— 5 o 



co O co a. £ 



C 
0) 

e 
c 

o 

•H 
> 



C3 

CU 

O 



0) 

o 
u 

3 

o 

C/3 




SF Environment 



Attachment ] 



Page 1 of 2 £Y±£T«. 



WILLIE L. BROWN, JR. 
Mayor 

JARED 8LUMENFELD 
Director 



\J 



January 24, 2002 

TO: Mr. Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst 

FROM: Cal Broomhead, Resource Efficiency Program Manager 

SUBJECT: Small Business Lighting Program Budget 

To set the program goals, CPUC staff provided a benchmark of Si. 5 million per MW saved in the small 
business sector and wanted to see an improvement over that mark. At S8 million divided by SI. 33 
million per MW gave approximately 6 MW as a goal. An average savings of 1.5 kW per site was set 
using information from the CPUC and Berkeley's direct experience. 6 MW divided by 1 .5 kW per site 
equals 4,000 sites. 

The budget for the Small Business Lighting Program was primarily determined by the CPUC staff. 

Of the total S10 million, the City of Berkeley was awarded 20%. An additional 2.5% was retained by the 
CPUC for their oversight costs leaving S7.8 million for our contract. To apportion funds to the budget 
categories, CCSF and Berkeley planned to administrate this program differently, with slightly different 
budgetary requirements; however, the CPUC wanted the budget formulas to be identical. 

Budget line items were developed and funds apportioned by the funding legislation and the CPUC staff 
on a percentage per line item. The legislation creating the funding set General Administration costs at no 
more than 15%. This is to include marketing, overhead. Monitoring and Verification and program 
management. CPUC staff started with 50% of the General Administration to be used for overhead and 
program management and 1% of the total program to be used for Monitoring and Verification. The 
cities' staffs argued to put more in marketing and less in overhead, program management and general 
management. 

The Monitoring and Verification contract will apply to both cities and will be administered by CCSF but 
managed by the CPUC staff. City of Berkeley will provide 20% or 519,500 of service as a trade from 
their marketing or program development budget. 

The remaining 85% was to be divided among Early Rollout (pilot phase) at 2.5% of the total, Audits at 
20%, and Installations the remaining 62.5%. Slightly different amounts were negotiated to put more into 
the Installations because customer incentives are critical to making this affordable to small businesses. 

S63 6,000 is dedicated to performing the audits and only accounts for on-site work conducting audits and 
later verification of specifications. SI 20.000 is for Standards, procedures and protocols to be developed 
and refined during the course of the program. This includes the design of the overall program, the audit 
standards, equipment specifications, quality control processes, customer screening protocols, operating 
procedures, audit report procedures, on-going review and revisions to program design, and on-going 




Attachment II 
Page 2 or Z 



SF Environment 




WILLIE L. BROWN. JR. 
Mayor 



JARED BLUMENFELD 
Direcror 

management of the audit systems. The $70,000 for the audit software is for the license purchase only. 
S97.200 is for selection of the software (3 tools to be evaluated), customization of the software to fit the 
Power Savers program, coordination with the Berkeley program (using the same tool as requested by the 
CPUC), periodic review and enhancements of the software. S 100.800 is for recruiting the customers 
including screening customers, scheduling the audits, and convincing the customers to go forward with 
an installation (at each of these points, customers can say "no" to moving forward). SI 20.000 is for 
auditor training including development of the training, initial training, ongoing training, and assessments 
of auditor performance. 5220,000 for initial quality control includes evaluation of the entire program 
over the first 500 audits. This is a detailed review beginning with the customer intake procedure all the 
way through to the point of assigning a construction contractor to the installation. This includes the 
customer screening forms and protocols, customer communication formats and protocols, audit 
aggregation to reduce travel time, audit procedures, detailed review of the audits including a second site 
visit to review audit quality, audit report formats, audit tracking system, aggregation criteria for 
assignment of construction contractors, and program results. 

Installation costs in this budget only reflect a portion of the actual cost estimated at 510,000,000. 
Incentive payments will be equal to approximately 25% of the total capital cost with the customers 
paying 75% of the construction costs. An additional 25% will be spent on construction management to 
ensure a quality installation (typical construction management costs on 51 million in construction is 
approximately 15%; however, for so many small projects, the costs will be much higher). These costs 
are in the performance payments for kW saved and sites installed. Other installation costs are for 
development of the program standards and procedures related to construction. 560,000 for construction 
management standards and procedures. 575,600 is for development of the quality control program, 
warranty management system, and quality tracking system. 580,000 is for contractor and equipment 
distributor selection, negotiation of materials and pricing contracts, and ongoing review and re- 
negotiation of contracts. 5175,000 for project financing is to pay for the Small Business Development 
Center's labor costs and the financing fees for customers needing to finance the construction work. 
591,500 is for initial quality control of the contractors including on-site inspections (including opening 
fixtures) and monitoring energy savings via utility bill reviews. 520,000 for Monitoring and Verification 
cooperation is time required to work with the M&V contractor to inspect and verify k\V savings and sites 
installed (requiring site visits). 




Attachment III 



SF Environment 




WILLIE L BROWN, JR. 
Mayor 

JARED BLUMENFELD 
Director 
January 24, 2002 

TO: Mr. Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst 

FROM: Cal Broomhead, Resource Efficiency Program Manager 

SUBJECT: Small Business Lighting Program RFP Process 

RFPs notices for our Small Business Lighting Program were sent out in mid-July to 400 on the SFE mailing list 
including the sole Energy Consultant listed on the Human Rights Commission MBE/WBE list and firms known to 
be active in the energy consulting field. The Bidder's meeting was mandatory and 38 people attended representing 
19 consulting firms. 

The process went as stated in the RFP, "The City intends to evaluate the proposals generally in accordance with the 
criteria itemized below. Up to 3 of the individuals or firms with the highest scoring proposals will be interviewed 
by the committee to make the final selection... Following the evaluation of the written proposals, reference checks 
may be conducted by staff. The three proposers receiving the highest scores will be invited to an oral interview. 
The interview will consist of standard questions asked of each of the three proposers, and specific questions 
regarding each individual proposal. Answers will be scored for each question. Final scoring will be determined 
from the oral interviews alone and will be based on proposed project plan, experience, approach, professional 
qualifications and similar project experience." 

August 24 we received three proposals: Newcomb Anderson, ICF Consulting, Aspen Systems. A copy of the 
proposals and the HRC forms were sent to HRC for review. Staff reviewed the proposals for completeness and 
checked references. No references provided comment contradictory to the proposal statements. The panelists 
were sent a copy of each proposal and provided a scoring sheet (attached) that included criteria for scoring. All 
scores were turned in by September 5. 

To calculate labor rates, proposals were required to calculate a total program labor cost using a form provided by 
SFE. The form prescribed the personnel categories and provided an assumed distribution of hours of labor for 
each category over the course of the contract. The fee scores were calculated (attached) according to City 
requirements and given a 10% weighting. Aspen received the full 10 points, Newcomb Anderson 7.39 points and 
ICF 6.41 points. Additionally, proposals were required to provide the percentage administration to be charged for 
subcontractors. Newcomb Anderson bid 5% and the others bid 10% (This was not given a weighting in the 
scores). A copy of the scores were sent to HRC. The total scores were 73.64, 74.75 and 78.66 - too close to 
eliminate any proposal from the interview; therefore, all proposers were notified to attend the oral interview. 

Interviews were held on September 12. During the interviews, panelists had a copy of the questions that were 
weighted to provide a maximum possible points totaling 100. Score sheets were gathered and faxed to HRC to be 
reviewed and totalled. The scores were Newcomb Anderson 86.33, ICF 83.0, Aspen 73.33. Per the RFP, the 
winner of the oral interview would be selected. All parties were notified that Newcomb Anderson was selected. 

The hourly rates to be used in the Newcomb Anderson contract are those set forth by Newcomb Anderson in their 
proposal. 



January 24, 2002 



Attachment IV 



ii ? 



- •! i & 



S;S 



oi 




o.eoo 
1.000 
4.600 

0,600 
0.O0O 
7.000 
0.000 

0.000 

>2,000 


§1 




**. .i : ~"" ;** 


gi 


=1 

1 


: ; ! 1 '. . l : 




il 

■31 


*1 ' : 




51 

a 


u, 
< C 






2 


ill 




9 "1 p3 

< E| •» 




< 


.* 1 


■S' 1 !2: 




£ 
< K 


«5 • • O 
ICM. . Mi 




o 

a 
a 


5 
^ 2 


F I i i 1 ! i 




01 £ 


E j " j i i ! I 




e 
a 


5 
^ .2 


I s : i 1 ! 1 n 




li 


:s; ! i | j lai 

r. ! i i 1 n 




> 


5 


1 >oi leiniataia 

1 n rrrrr 




£ 

< = 






< 
o 


5 




h i irrr 




01 " 

< 5 


I mi I inimewKM 

IS. j 0<CV-r;*r 

I i"| I !**n 1 




o 
u 

< 


5 

!< S. 


j ifl. j .OlO'O 




> m 
< E 


1 , 1 ;Qtu*>iO'0 




u 

o 


5 


! !oi . ■ [b'b 
; ;o" ! j \V4- — 




a • 


\ | IS j | jsjs 




(n 


* II ;" ' 1 i > i 1 ! 




Ml ! ! ! 1 • i i 




< 
< 


•- !l£; ;;: ;:j: s: ;"- ;: 

3 O' :o; lO'C.0.0 O 




> Sis 1 ~ :z :;:"'S 




©0-5 


i 


n.O'O-o.— — —no 




|| 


O'O'Q -O-O O-O O O 

ccg C'Ogo S a 




< 


I llj.j 

5 ■ = s © r* S -5 .2 





2 • = 






si Is f| h = 
p8I|isi<§l 



II 

O 'J < _ C ., => 

IU<U=>tflae3£a 



Attachment V 





















1 

1 




1 






= 




















































cj 


























C 


























J 


























— 
























<n 


Cl 


















































a 




















































c 


O 
























■o 


3 
























a 










i 






































* 


lli a. 
r' O 
























c 


— o 

£ O 


o 

Bl 






















V 


- c 


B 






















u 


a o 
























_l 


c . 

c a. 

LU LU 

1 

2 O 
5 ™ 


a 

en 

5 
c 

LU 




5 
5 

CD 

c 






c 



U 


















S ■ 


— 


o 


— 


















o S 




» 1™ 




















SI 
























a. = 


a 
o 




LU 
Q.' 


LU 
0.' 


< 


< 


< 


D 


< 


< 
5 




- 2 


- I w 


"- 


■V 


N 2 


2 


-i 


-^ 




























— m 


























E o 




















































t— -=• 


























O vi 


CO 


o 


Cvj 


<£S 


o 


to 


o 


lA 


CO 


o 


n 


cs 
















































































■"■^; 




















































S a 
































z 


























2 




















































a 






a 















































BL 




















o 


3 
u 

'u 

c 


~z 


1 

c 
2 




8 

u 


a 

X 


a 
1 

LJ 


3 


o 
o 


8 


B 
u 

U 

c 


"3 
E 


E 




2 


^> 13 


B 


a 


a 


rg 


B 


B 


re 


— 




u. 


m 




n 


u_ 


V) 


LL 


U 




I 1 








s 


U 







c 


_• 


B 


C 








O 








< 




B 


f 


E 


n 


B 


19 


a 




O 






o 




00 


r. 


CO 


in 


U3 


VI 


CO 




_J 






IS 

E 

O 

c 

o 






O 




















|W 1 

i 
























































CI 




































1 o 












B 
























0) 










a 


= 








Si 




'J 
























































o 


8 


II 








u 




£ 








J3 




UJ 




















s 


|< 


■a 


u, 






<i 




c 






























E 


o 
1 5 


L 


Si 


1 


=rll 


e 

re 




! c 




H 


S 

□ 


D 

>— 


i< 


!.s 


lu 


| 


o — 


c 


u 


B 




2 


B 


1 


il 

: > 


: S 

z 


i s 

ICJ 


s 

III 

u 
ly 

l< 


3) l-r 
— °> 

UJ I c 

< fe 

D !UJ 


la 

■ 

B 

6 


2 


i 

B 
ICO 


2 


ic5 


a 



c 
n o 

•a •= 

ZJ £ 
m 


i I 
i ! 




! H i i ' i j I j 


rr * 
— _S£ 

p re 
Q 5 


** 




X 

i 1 


1 | ! ! 1 ! 

i i 


C5 


i i 

i 




1 i 1 

1 1 1 i ! ! ! 1 1 ! 


< - 

2 


X 






| I ! j | ! 

1 X ' x 1 x 1 

i 1 1 1 1 i 


Mil 

i'm 


O 
Q 
D 

CO 


1 1 

X 




II l-l 


1 
1 


1 1 


c 
n 

> 

n 

a 


] 1 
X | X 1 




i 

i K 


1 i 1 

V 

1 1 1 


1 1 1 i 

I III 


UJ 

>- 


1 








1 




X 


"1 INI! 


< 

o 

z 




" 








1 




X 


j L 








a 
o 
< 












I 




X 

i 


1 i i 

XX 


I 

1 
1 


LU 
LU 

o 




K 




X 


1 

! 1 1 
















CO 
LU 






i i 

X I X X 






1 1 






< 
< 

z 




1 




X 1 X I | X ! X 

1 1 1 1 


- 


X 


i 
1" 


i | 

X ; X X 

1 ! 


a 

.3 

E 
a 

s 

a 
u 


1 1^ 

UJ U 2 

S MS ,CL 

iZ 




! ! 
! ! i 


ill ! ! i ! 




Id 

B 
r- 

E 
c 

Ol 

a 
a. 


1 ! 

! jl 

! 5" 12 

E ' a 1 E 

O |Q id. 
3 -=e I-* 

2 5 i 5 


1 ra 

s 

Io 

! 1 


-o 


< 

Il II 

|i=Ui| 

co 1 8 j.2 j 2 
•e '"Sic- 13 

lie 1R 

g US lw i.l 
Q j| |J "S 

a ig | £ Its 

S !B !« IS 

c ic ~ iu 


I 1 
i 

I. 

lil 
.1 !f ! • 

-o |c 's 
« | ra -S 
| 5" S 

u 1 > 1 =a 



52 " 



■=■ c - 



12 



Attachment VI 




SF Environment 



January 24, 2002 

TO: Mr. Harvey Rose, 3udget Analyst 

FROM: Cal 3roomhead. Resource Efficiency Program Manager 




WILLIE L BROWN, JR. 
Mayor 

JAREO SLUMcNFELD 
Direcccr 




&&r?Z. 



"tAz^' 



SUBJECT: Small Business Lighting Program Fee Scoring Process and Performance Enforcement 

SFE did not select the lowest priced proposal because we estimated that the experience and capabilities of the 
consultant would have greater impact on program success than labor prices due to the fact that much of the critical 
labor costs would be covered in performance payments. Therefore, fees were given a 10% weight. 

Proposing firms provided cost estimates based upon a set of job titles and our estimate of the total number of hours 
that might be spent per job classification. This was done because attendees at the Pre-bid Conference questioned 
how we could assess fees. If job classifications vary among companies and some classifications would be used 
only slightly during the program, bidders would be able to game the fee scoring by deleting some high paying 
classifications that would not be used very often, e.g. the principal, attorneys, etc. Therefore, we provided a list of 
9 job classifications. At that time, we estimated that 50% of program funds might goto labor and that SI 10 is a 
reasonable average cost per hour which calculates to approximately 30,400 hours, which we then spread among the 
9 classifications. Proposers were instructed to multiply their own labor rates times the number of hours in each 
classification and provide a grand total to be used to score the fees. 

The results were: Aspen Systems at 52,233,800; Newcomb .Anderson at S3, 02 1, 1.00; and ICF at S3,484,900. 

The difference between S3. 021, 100 and 56,750,000 is because our estimate was that 50% of program cost would 
go to labor and because the Newcomb Anderson average cost for our estimated hours came in below SI 00 per 
hour. 

Performance payments will be made when audits axe completed, when sites have completed installation, and when 
kW have been saved. First, Newcomb Anderson contruction manager has to personally visit and sign off on each 
installation and each business owner will be handed a survey to send in. This is critical to Newcomb Anderson's 
quality control program and critical to keeping their costs down. 

Second, each month Newcomb Anderson will provide an invoice and report that includes an electronic copy of the 
database and its reports. The report will contain a list of address, business name, owner and contact information 
for all audits and installations completed, and kW saved per site. The database also contains the audit report that 
details the energy savings. SFE staff will spot check these facts with phone calls and site visits because it is 
critical to program success. Our marketing role requires regular contact with business organizations, review of 
sampled site installations, and very close attention to complaints. The Program Manager, Hank Ryan, is an energy 
efficiency specialist and can easily determine if they are not meeting the goals of sites installed and k\V saved. If 
we find discrepancies between the report and our spot checks, the invoice will not be paid and we go back and 
check every job on that invoice. 

Third, a third party Monitoring and Verification team, managed by CPUC will be working with Necwcomb 
Anderson and SFE staff to verify savings achieved. They will use formal industry M&V protocols to review 
program claims. We are working now to clarify the CPUC criteria for k W savings. 




Attachment VII 



TO: 
FROM: 



SF Environment 



Mr. Harvey Rose. Budget Analyst 

Cal Broomhead, Resource Efficiency Program Manager 




WILLIE L. BROWN, JR. 
Mayor 

JARED BLUMENFELD 
Director 




SUBJECT: Small Business Lighting Program Early Rollout 

Early Rollout is the pilot phase of the Small Business Lighting Program. This work is being performed 
under a master contract held by Department of Public Works for similar services on City facilities. To 
meet the requirements of the CPUC timeline, permission was obtained to extend the scope of the DPW 
master contract to include City facilities for this pilot phase. Of the four firms in the master contract, 
Newcomb Anderson was the only firm with expertise in lighting, the depth of staff to perform the work, 
and locally availabe for the multiplicity of meetings and on-site service required by this work. 

The goal of the pilot is 60 audits and 40 installations. To date, the program has secured 62 audit 
authorizations, performed 47 audits, presented 29 to the business owners, secured 12 installation 
authorizations and completed 7 installations. Two of those installations are only a few blocks from City 
Hall: Civic Center Market on Market on the comer of Larkin, and Dalda's Grocery on Eddy at the comer 
of Taylor. 

In spite of the impact of the drop in the local economy, the psychological and economic impact of 9/1 1, 
delays in required City processes, and an enforced break created by the holiday season, this pilot has not 
yet met its goals, but has had some success. Comparing the number of audits presented to the number of 
installations authorized, we have a conversion rate of 40%, double the success rate of other small 
business programs. Installed measures are saving a total of 7.7 kW and saving $3,720 annually at a cost 
to the owners of $9,926 a 37% return on investment. 

We have learned many lesssons that are now being used to develop a better program design with faster 
service at lower cost and even higher quality of design. We are currently finishing the audits, and 
making the presentations to the businesses, securing more contracts, and installing more measures. We 
are also preparing our marketing systems, training our own staff, developing communication links with 
City agencies and members of the Board of Supervisors, and reaching out to businesses and business 
organizations in targeted locations. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 - File 01-2236 

Note: This ordinance was amended at the Board of Supervisors meeting of January 
28, 2002 to add $31,557 and was re-referred to the Finance Committee. 



Department: 
Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Budget: 



Comments: 



District Attorney 

Ordinance appropriating $260,144 from the General Fund 
Reserve to provide funding to the District Attorney for the 
Court-ordered change of venue for the case of People of 
State of California v. Knoller, et al. 

$260,144 

General Fund Reserve 

The District Attorney is prosecuting Ms. Marjorie Knoller 
and Mr. Robert Noel for involuntary manslaughter and 
keeping vicious dogs and is also prosecuting Ms. Knoller 
for second-degree murder in the death of Ms. Diane 
Whipple. In September of 2001, the case of the People of 
the State of California v. Knoller, et al. was moved from 
San Francisco to Los Angeles by order of San Francisco 
Superior Court Judge James Warren. The change in 
venue came as a result of a defense motion to move the 
trial based in part on a defense-sponsored survey which 
found that 71 percent of potential jurors in San Francisco 
had already concluded that the defendants were either 
definitely guilty or probably guilty. 

The trial is scheduled to begin with jury selection on 
January 24, 2002 and is expected to last at least 10 
weeks. The change of venue requires that the District 
Attorney's Office prosecution team relocate to Los Angeles 
for the duration of the trial. The District Attorney is 
requesting a supplemental appropriation in the amount of 
$260,144 for living accommodations, transportation, office 
supplies and equipment, messenger services, temporary 
support staff and other trial related expenses for the trial 
in Los Angeles. 

Attachment I. provided by the District Attorney's Office, 
provides budget details in the amount of $259,258. 

1. Ms. Teresa Serata of the District Attorney's Office 
reports that the trial is expected to last at least 10 weeks, 
but because it is difficult to estimate the duration of the 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

15 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



trial, it could last more or less than 10 weeks. According 
to Ms. Serata. it is unlikely that the trial will be less than 
10 weeks. However, Ms. Serata states that if the trial is 
shorter, the District Attorney's Office will return the 
unused portion of the subject requested funds to the 
General Fund Reserve. If the case continues beyond the 
estimated 10 weeks and if more funds are needed, Ms. 
Serata reports, the District Attorney's Office will request 
that additional funds be appropriated by the Board of 
Supervisors. 

2. Ms. Serata reports that the prosecution team working 
in Los Angeles for the trial will consist of three attorneys, 
two District Attorney investigators, one paralegal, two 
temporary investigators/paralegals and one legal 
secretary, for a total of 9 positions. Ms. Serata reports 
that the District Attorney's Office will hire the two 
temporary 8132 Assistant District Attorney 
Investigators/Paralegals at a total cost of $18,038 
(including $16,740 in temporary salaries and $1,298 for 
Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance) 
for the estimated 10 week duration of the trial as shown 
in the attached budget. Ms. Serata reports that the two 
temporary investigators are law students who are 
currently interning in the District Attorney's office. Ms. 
Serata further advises that the two law students are not 
currently being paid a salary, but will be brought on as 
temporary 8132s for the trial. According to Ms. Serata, 
the prosecution team needs two investigators in Los 
Angeles because one will be coordinating witnesses 
throughout the trial and the second will be doing onsite 
research and other tasks for the attorneys. Upon 
conclusion of the trial, Ms. Serata states that the two 
temporary 8132 positions will be terminated. In addition, 
one legal secretary, residing in the Los Angeles area, will 
be retained at an estimated cost of $12,000 through a 
temporary services firm located in Los Angeles for the 
duration of the trial. Further details are included in 
Attachment II, provided by the District Attorney's Office. 

3. Ms. Serata reports that the District Attorney's Office 
will be renting five one-bedroom apartment units in Los 
Angeles for the estimated 10 week duration of the trial at 



Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

16 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



an estimated total cost of $31,700 as shown in the 
attached budget. 

According to Ms. Serata, the five one-bedroom apartment 
units will provide accommodations for the eight staff 
members who would relocate from San Francisco to work 
in Los Angeles. As shown in Attachment II, the District 
Attorney's Office has budgeted $31,700 for rent for the 
five apartment units, or $575 per week per apartment for 
ten weeks, or $2,875 per week for all five units at a total 
cost of $28,750. In addition, $2,500 has been budgeted for 
security deposits for the five apartment units ($500 per 
unit), which is refundable; $375 for set up fees to clean 
and prepare the five apartments for occupancy at $75 per 
unit, which is not refundable; and $75 for the application 
fee, which is not refundable, for a total estimated amount 
of $31,700. 

4. According to Ms. Serata, the $115,000 budgeted for 
Litigation Expenses includes trial exhibit preparation, 
such as printing and reproduction, the transportation and 
accommodations for trial and expert witnesses and other 
related trial costs. Ms. Serata states that the District 
Attorney's Office is unable to provide additional budget 
details to the Budget Analyst on Litigation Expenses 
because it would compromise the prosecution team's 
strategy for the trial. According to Ms. Serata, the 
District Attorney's Office is prepared to provide any 
additional details to the Finance Committee in closed 
session if requested to do so by the Finance Committee. 

5. Ms. Serata reports that the District Attorney's Office 
will drive two City-owned automobiles to Los Angeles and 
rent two additional automobiles in Los Angeles for the 
duration of the trial at a rental cost of $250 per 
automobile per week, for a total of $5,000 for the two 
rented automobiles for ten weeks. The District Attorney's 
Office has budgeted a total of $2,000 for fuel, or $50 each 
for four automobiles for ten weeks. According to Ms. 
Serata. the reason the District Attorney's Office cannot 
relocate two additional City-owned automobiles to Los 
Angeles for a total of four, and instead is renting two 
automobiles, is because the District Attorney's Office does 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



not have sufficient available automobiles to relocate all 
four automobiles to Los Angeles. Further, Ms. Serata 
reports that many of the District Attorney's automobiles 
are grant-funded and therefore cannot be taken to Los 
Angeles for this trial. In addition, Ms. Serata states that 
the District Attorney's Office has several Compressed 
Natural Gas automobiles, which are not appropriate for 
the long-distance drive to Los Angeles. 

6. Ms. Serata reports that although the defendants 
requested separate trials, Superior Court Judge James 
Warren has denied the defense motion and therefore the 
case will proceed as one trial. 

7. The proposed supplemental appropriation was 
originally budgeted for $275,237. Based on inquiries of 
the Budget Analyst, the District Attorney's Office 
proposed a reduced budget in the amount of $228,587 or 
$46,650 less than the budget as previously submitted to 
the Board of Supervisors. The Budget Analyst previously 
recommended on January 23, 2002 that the ordinance be 
amended to reduce the amount appropriated by $46,650 
from $275,237 to $228,587 and an amendment to reduce 
the supplemental appropriation request by $46,650 was 
approved by the Finance Committee. 

8. The District Attorney's Office subsequently identified 
an additional need for $31,557 for the supplemental 
appropriation and the subject supplemental appropriation 
was amended for a total revised request of $260,144. 
Attachment III, provided by the District Attorney's Office 
provides an explanation for additional requested 
expenditures of $30,670, or $887 less than the requested 
amount of $31,557. As explained in Attachment III, Ms. 
Serata reports that the additional $30,670 will be used for 
the two additional temporary Investigators and one 
temporary Legal Secretary to supplement the prosecution 
team working in Los Angeles with additional personnel 
working in San Francisco, for the estimated 10 week 
duration of the trial. Ms. Serata reports that the 
prosecution team needs two investigators and one legal 
secretary to support the prosecution team by conducting 
ongoing investigations and legal work in San Francisco. 
The Budget Analyst recommends amending the ordinance 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
18 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

to reduce the amount appropriated by $887 from $260,144 
to $259,257. The reduction of $887 includes: (a) a $709 
reduction in Temporary Salaries, from $53,743 to $53,034; 
and (b) a $178 reduction in Fringe Benefits, from $7,851 
to $7,673. 

9. Ms. Serata reports that the District Attorney's Office 
has already incurred and/or obligated a total of $39,275 of 
the requested amount of $260,144. The $39,275 already 
obligated includes: $31,700 for the rental of five 
apartment units; $2,300 for transportation and 
accommodations; $5,000 for litigation expenses; and $275 
for a fax machine. According to Ms. Serata, such 
expenditures and obligations were incurred prior to 
obtaining approval of the Board of Supervisors because it 
was necessary to make arrangements for accommodations 
and other preparations for the trial in order to be ready 
for jury selection which began on January 24. The 
Finance Committee previously amended the ordinance to 
provide for such retroactivity. The Budget Analyst 
considers the approval of such retroactive costs and 
obligations to be a policy decision for the Board of 
Supervisors. 

Recommendations: 1. Amend the proposed ordinance to reduce the requested 

supplemental appropriation by a total of $887 from 
$260,144 to $259,257 (line 16, page 1), by reducing the 
amount for Temporary Salaries (line 24, page 1) by $709, 
from $53,743 to $53,034 and reducing the amount for 
Fringe Benefits (line 9, page 2) by $178, from $7,851 to 
$7,673, as discussed in Comment No. 7 above. 

2. Approve the proposed supplemental appropriation in 
the amount of $219,982 ($259,257 less $39,275 in 
retroactive expenditures). 

3. Because of retroactivity, approval of $39,275 of this 
$260,144 request is a policy decision for the Board of 
Supervisors, as discussed in Comment No. 9 above. 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 
19 



Attachment 



DESCRIPTION OF APPROPRIATION 


BUDGET 


REVISED BUDGET 


Temporary Salaries 


$16,740 


$53,034 


Fringe Benefits 


$1,297 


$7,673 


Travel Costs Paid To Vendors 


$15,600 


$15,600 


Travel for prosecution team to and from Los Angeles 






S200 round trip airfare for 10 trips for 6 staff 






S200 round trip airfare for 9 trips for 2 staff 






Professional Services-Legal Services 


$12,000 


$0 


Funding for a temporary legal secretary in Los Angeles 






$30 per hour x 400 hours 






Rental Property 


$31,700 


$31,700 


Housing for prosecution team (8 members) for 10 weeks 






Rental Vehicles 


$5,000 


$5,000 


Rent 2 vehicles for 10 weeks in Los Angeles 






Equipment Rental 


$3,250 


$3,250 


Rental of office equipment for 10 weeks 






Telephone 


$9,000 


$9,000 


Installation and usage of 6 telephones for 10 week trial 






Subsistence 


$12,000 


$12,000 


Food allowance for 8 prosecution team members 






$30 per day for 1 weeks 






Messenger Services 


$500 


$500 


Court Reporter Transcripts Services 


$2,500 


$2,500 


Litigations Expenses 


$115,000 


$115,000 


Fuel 


$2,000 


$2,000 


Fuel for rental and investigator vehicles 






$50 per week x 1 weeks x 4 vehicles 






Office supplies 


$2,000 


$2,000 



TOTAL SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION REQUEST 



$228,587 



$259,257 



2 Source: San Francisco District Attorney's Office 



Attachment II 
Paae I of 2 



MEMORANDUM 

DATE: January 15, 2002 

TO: Sarah Graham 

Board of Supervisor's Budget Analyst Office 

FROM: Teresa Serata 

District Attorney's Office 

SUBJECT: Response to Questions Regarding Supplemental Appropriation 

Per our previous conversations, I am providing additional information pertaining to our 
supplemental appropriation request for S275,237 to cover the additional costs related to the 
People of the State of California v. Knoeller. et al. trial due to the change of venue. 

The trial is set to begin on January 24, 2002 starting with the selection of the jury. In order to 
prepared for court on Tuesday, our prosecution team is scheduled to relocate to Los Angeles on 
January 17, 2002. We expect the trial team to be in Los Angeles for 10 weeks. 

The defense has made a motion for separate trials for the two defendants. However, on Tuesday, 
January 15, 2002 the judge determined that the case would proceed as one trial. The 
supplemental appropriation request only reflects the additional costs related to one trial. 

The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office is graciously providing office space for our team. 
We are sending two members of the team to Los Angeles this week to do a site visit of the office 
space, court building, and related facilities, conduct a final needs assessment for the trial team, 
and handle any logistical issues. 

Temporary Salaries : We are planning to hire two temporary 8132-Assistant District Attorney 
Investigators/Paralegals to provide trial support to the team in Los Angeles. The individuals we 
plan to hire are unpaid interns who have been assisting the attorneys and are familiar with the 
case. We will fill the positions effective January 17, 2002, the day the team plans to relocate to 
Los Angeles, and will only need the temporary staff during the course of the trial, which we 
anticipate to be 10 weeks (SI, 674 bw x 5 payperiods x 2 FTE ). 

One 8132-Assistant District Attorney Investigators/Paralegal will be responsible for coordinating 
the transportation and accommodation arrangements for the witnesses. The other will be 



21 



Attachment II 
Page 2 of 2 
responsible for ensuring the office is functional during the trial, e.g., copying, filing, and 
maintaining documents and trial materials. 

Professional Services : We plan to obtain the services of a legal secretary through a temporary 
agency in Los Angeles. The legal secretary will provides services such transcribing (as needed), 
and word processing legal documents, e.g., jury instructions. 

Rental Property : We are renting 5 apartments for 8 staff. The cost for each unit is as follows: 
S5,750 rent for 10 weeks (S2,300/month) 
500 security deposit (refundable) 
75 set up fee (non refundable) 
S6,325 per unit for 10 weeks 

5 units x S6,325 per unit = S3 1 ,625 for 1 weeks 

Plus lx application fee 75 (non refundable) 

TOTAL Rental Property S3 1 ,700 

To date, we issued a check for SI, 300 as a deposit for the rental units. 

Rental Vehicles : We will rent two vehicles (S250/week x 10 weeks) and drive two city vehicles. 

Rental Equipment : We originally assumed that we would have to rent computers, printers, 
copiers, transcribers, and facsimile machines. The Los Angeles District Attorney's Office is 
setting up an office for us, which includes four computers and printers. It is more economical to 
buy a facsimile machine than to rent one. It costs S75-100/month to rent a facsimile machine and 
S250 to purchase. We decided to buy one instead of rent. 

Copier S3, 000 for 10 weeks (SI, 200 per month ) 
FAX 250 to purchase 

Total 53,250 for 10 weeks 

Litigation Expenses : The expenditures related to this line item are confidential. In general, these 
expenses are for transportation, accommodations, and per diem for witnesses, and trial exhibit 
preparation and reproduction. 

If you have additional questions, please contact me at 553-1895. 

Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 



22 



Attachment IE 

MEMORANDUM 



DATE: January 28, 2002 

TO: Sarah Graham 

Budget Analyst's Office 

FROM: Teresa Serata 

District Attorney's Office 

SUBJECT: Amendment to Ordinance File No. 012236 



We are amending the ordinance File No. 012236 by $30,670 as follows: 
increasing temporary salaries by $36,294, including the reallocation of 
$11,290 from the $12,000 in legal services, and fringe benefits by $6,376, 
including the reallocation of $710 from the $12,000 in legal services. The 
additional $30,670 is made up of an additional $36,294 for temporary salaries 
plus an additional $6,376 for fringe benefits, offset by a reduction of $12,000 
in legal services. 

We currently have a prosecution team working in Los Angeles as a result of 
the court ordered change of venue in the case of People of the State of 
California v. Knoller, et. al. We are requesting additional funds to hire 
temporary staff (two 8146 District Attorney Investigators and one 1458 Legal 
Secretary I) who are needed to conduct and follow through on related 
investigations in San Francisco. In addition, we are requesting that we 
reallocate the funds for legal services so that we can hire a temporary legal 
secretary to perform work in San Francisco. 

If you have any questions, please contact me at 553-1895. 
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 



23 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 5 - File 02-0098 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Public Health 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds in the 
amount of $100,000 for the Shanti Lifelines Breast 
Cancer Pilot Project. 

$100,000 

General Fund monies reserved in the Fiscal Year (FY) 
2001-2002 DPH budget. 

During the FY 2001-2002 budget review, the Board of 
Supervisors appropriated and reserved $100,000 to the 
Department of Public Health (DPH) for the Shanti 
Lifelines Breast Cancer Pilot Project. Such funds were 
placed on reserve pending the submission to the Finance 
Committee of contract details including the services to be 
provided by Shanti LifeLines, hourly rates and the 
estimated hours. Ms. Monique Zmuda of DPH reports 
that Shanti LifeLines is a non-profit organization that has 
contracted with DPH since 1988 for the provision of 
HIV/AIDS related services (see Comment No. 1). 

Under the subject Shanti LifeLines Breast Cancer Pilot 
Project, Shanti LifeLines would provide support services 
to an estimated 80 women diagnosed with breast cancer 
living in the City who are medically underserved, 
uninsured or underinsured, with low or no income, and 
marginally housed or homeless. The LifeLines Breast 
Cancer Pilot Project is intended to provide support 
services to such indigent women diagnosed with breast 
cancer including emotional peer support provided by a 
Shanti-trained volunteer, childcare, pet care, 
accompanying clients to medical appointments, 
housecleaning, and assistance with errands and cooking. 
The Pilot Project aims to address barriers to accessing 
breast cancer treatment and support services through 
peer volunteer and transportation services. 

According to Ms. Zmuda, in addition to the subject 
reserved funds in the amount of $100,000, the Board of 
Supervisors also appropriated an additional $75,000 in 
General Fund monies during the annual budget review to 
DPH's FY 2001-2002 budget for the subject Pilot Project, 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

bringing the total Pilot Project budget to $175,000. Ms. 
Zmuda advises that the $75,000 addback was not placed 
on reserve so that Shanti LifeLines could begin the four- 
month planning phase of the Pilot Project. According to 
Ms. Zmuda, $73,111 of the $75,000 in addback funds has 
been expended on program planning since October 1, 2001 
(see Comment No. 2), leaving $1,889 in unexpended 
funds. To date, no clients have been served by the Pilot 
Project. Ms. Zmuda reports that all funds for the subject 
Pilot Project will be fully expended by June 30, 2002. 

According to Ms. Zmuda, clients are selected based on 
their financial need for services. Shanti will rely on client 
referrals from other providers of breast cancer 
treatments/services and a bilingual outreach campaign. 
The bilingual outreach campaign will include 
advertisements in local Latino and community 
newspapers, postings in churches and synagogues, and 
street outreach targeting the Tenderloin, Bayview 
Hunters Point, South of Market, Chinatown, the Inner 
Mission and the Bernal Heights communities. 

Budget: Total project costs are $175,000, including $73,111 for 

costs previously incurred as shown in Attachment I 
provided by Ms. Zmuda, and $101,889 as shown in 
Attachment II provided by Ms. Zmuda. The $101,889 
includes the subject requested release of $100,000 plus 
$1,889 in previously appropriated but unexpended funds. 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Zmuda, the subject Shanti Lifelines 

Breast Cancer Pilot Project would be modeled after the 
Shanti LifeLines projects for persons with HIV/AIDS. The 
DPH selected Shanti LifeLines to develop and conduct the 
subject Pilot Project on a sole source basis because of its 
experience in providing similar services to persons with 
HIV/AIDS. 

2. Ms. Zmuda reports that Shanti LifeLines staff, in 
consultation with DPH, have spent the past 
approximately four months (October 1, 2001 through 
January 29, 2002) developing the subject Pilot Project at a 
cost of $73,111. As previously noted, funds to cover the 
cost of the four months of the Pilot Program's 
development were from a Board of Supervisors addback to 
DPH's FY 2001-2002 budget during the annual budget 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

25 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

process. Attachment I, provided by DPH contains a 
budget and explanation of the $73,111 previously 
expended. The balance of $1,889 ($75,000 less $73,111) 
will be combined with the subject requested reserve of 
$100,000 to fund other Pilot Program costs, for a total 
additional cost of $101,889. 

3. Attachment II, provided by Ms. Zmuda contains a 
budget and explanation of the unexpended project costs of 
$101,889, including this subject request of $100,000. 
Such costs include $23,597 for intake services including 
intake follow up services. As previously noted, DPH 
anticipates that 80 women will be served by the subject 
Pilot Project. 

4. As shown in Attachment II, peer volunteer services, at 
a cost of $23,325, will be provided to an estimated 20 
clients. The peer volunteers will include survivors of 
breast cancer, women living with breast cancer, and 
caregivers or a family member of someone who has had 
breast cancer. 

5. As shown in Attachment II, costs totaling $25,949 are 
included for Shanti LifeLines staff to train peer 
volunteers, and coordinate and oversee the peer volunteer 
program. 

6. As shown in Attachment II, transportation services 
costing $29,018, will be provided to an estimated 80 
clients, including the 20 clients also receiving peer 
volunteer services plus an additional 60 clients in need of 
transportation services only. Such transportation 
services will be provided in Shanti LifeLines vans and 
will include round-trip rides to medical and social services 
appointments. Ms. Zmuda explains that more women will 
need transportation services than will need peer 
volunteer services because some women will have family 
support and may find a volunteer an intrusion into their 
family structure, whereas others will have little support 
and will need volunteer support. 

Recommendation: Approve the proposed release of reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

26 



Attachment I 



Attachment I 

Shanti Lifelines Breast Cancer Pilot Project Budget 

Program Development S 7 3,1H 

Staff time, operating, training, and indirect costs to plan, develop, coordinate and 
implement program components. 

Program Development I 4 Months 1 SI 8,277 Per Month 



Staff hours I 336 Hours | S87.45 per hour 



Source: DPH 

C:\windows\TE\lF.~ME0G046.doc 

27 



Attachment II 



Attachment II 



Shanti Lifelines Breast Cancer Pilot Project Budget 



Program Services 5101,889 (5 months) 



Service Modality 


Units of 

Service 


Cost Per Unit 


Total 


Intake/FoUow-Up 


320 Hours 


S73.74 


523,597 


Peer Volunteer Match/Follow-up 


254 Hours 


S91.83 


523,325 


Peer Volunteer 


720 Hours 


S36.04 


525,949 


Client Transportation 


750 Hours 


S38.69 


29,018 






Total 


5101,889 



Intake/Follow-Up 



320 Hours 



573.74 



523,597 



An estimated 320 hours of intake/follow-up services would be provided to clients. Innake 
services include an assessment by Shanti LifeLines staff to determine the client's needs and 
eligibility for services, and to establish a plan of care. Clients will receive follow-up contact 
from Shanti LifeLines staff to verify that their needs are being met by Shanti LifeLines 
services. 



Peer Volunteer Match/Follow-up | 254 Hours 



591.83 



523,325 



Shanti LifeLines staff would provide an estimated 254 hours of peer volunteer match/follow- 
up services to the clients. LifeLines staff will evaluate the initial request for peer volunteer 
services, match the clients to an appropriate peer volunteer, and provide follow-up with the 
clients and peer volunteers to determine the effectiveness of the client/peer volunteer match. 
It is estimated that 20 unduplicated clients will be provided the volunteer match and follow-up 
services. 



Peer Volunteer 



720 Hours 



536.04 



525,949 



An estimated 720 hours of peer volunteer services would be provided to the 20 clients. These 
services include, but are not limited to, emotional peer support provided by a Shanti-trained 
peer support volunteers trained in non-judgmental active listening; childcare, pet care, 
accompanying presence to medical appointments, grocery shopping, housecleaning, 
assistance with errands, paying bills, cooking, etc. 



Client Transportation 



750 Hours 



S38.69 



29,018 



Shanti would provide 750 hours of transportation services to clients. These are van rides 
provided to the client, children of the client, and 7 or an attendant (caregiver, volunteer, etc.) to 
medical appointments, social services appointments, and/or Project Open Hand Grocery 
Center. 



Source: DPR 



C:\windows\TEMP\-ME00046.doc 



23 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 6 -File 02-0125 



Department: 



Item: 



Business and Economic Development, Treasure Island 
Development Authority 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Treasure 
Island Development Authority (Fiscal Year 2001-2002 
budget), in the amount of $338,575 representing five 
months of Salaries and Fringe Benefits for Treasure 
Island staff. 



Description: 



Comment: 



In the FY 2001-2002 budget, the Board of Supervisors 
appropriated and placed on reserve $406,290 for salaries 
and fringe benefits for Treasure Island. The amount of 
$406,290 represents 50 percent, or six months, of the 
Treasure Island Development Authority's Salaries and 
Fringe Benefits for 12 Special Assistant positions. At the 
Finance Committee meeting of December 19, 2001 (File 
01-2183), the Finance Committee released one month or 
$67,715 for Salaries and Fringe Benefits related to these 
twelve positions. 

As stated in the Budget Analyst's report for File 01-1818, 
heard by the Finance Committee on December 12, 2001, 
the Board of Supervisors, placed a reserve of $15,260,220 
in the FY 2001-2002 budget of 36 City Departments to 
fund six months of salaries and fringe benefits for the 
period from January 1, 2002 through June 30, 2002 for 
276 former Special Assistant positions included in the 
MCCP. The Finance Committee released one month of 
salaries and fringe benefits totaling $2,543,370 for the 
Citywide MCCP reserve, pending completion of 
negotiations between the City and MEA at its meeting of 
December 12, 2001 (File 01-1818). Subsequently, on 
January 30, 2002 the Finance Committee released an 
additional one month of salaries and fringe benefits 
totaling $2,543,370 for the Citywide MCCP reserve (File 
02-0059). 

The Budget Analyst therefore recommends the release of 
one month of Salaries and Fringe Benefits for the 
Treasure Island Development Authority positions, or 
$67,715, with the balance of $270,860 ($338,575 less 
$67,715) for four months Salaries and Fringe Benefits 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



JflN-31-2002 15=55 



HARUEY M ROSE ftCC CORP 



415 d^d W4bl 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 6, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Recommendations; 



remaining on reserve, to be considered in conjunction 
with the remaining reserve of Salaries and Fringe 
Benefits for the Citywide MCCP positions. 

1. Approve the release of $67,715, representing one 
month of Salaries and Fringe Benefits of the previously 
reserved funds of $338,575, as discussed in the Comment 
above. 

2. Continue to reserve $270,860 pending the presentation 
to the Board of Supervisors of the Treasure Island 
Development Authority's and Department of Human 
Resources plan for the reclassification of non-MEA 
positions and the results of negotiations between the City 
and MEA and the completion of the review of all MCCP 
positions as discussed in the Comment above. 

3. The Budget Analyst recommends that any future 
requests for release of reserves of Salaries and Fringe 
Benefits for the Treasure Island Development Authority 
positions be considered in conjunction with the request for 
the release of reserves of Salaries and Fringe Benefits for 
the Citywide MCCP positions. 



Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Daly 
Supervisor Maxwell 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 
Ted Lakey 



z^~ 



Harvey M. Rose 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 
30 



o.xS 



r 6A 




City Hall 
Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 
B^ARD of SUPERVISORS R^3^1M ) Z ) £an Francisco 94102-4689 

\* Wk^lKlLA*/ TeL No - 554-5184 

Fax No. 554-5163 
TDD/TTYNo.5^^ ENTS DE p T 

TZD - 5 2002 

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING SAN FRANC , S CO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
FINANCE COMMITTEE 

SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

02-05-02A08:39 RCVD 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the general public that the Finance Committee will hold 
a public hearing on Wednesday, February 13, 2002, at 12:30 p.m., in Room 263, at 
City Hall, at 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, California to consider the 
following: 

File: 012137 [General Advertising Signs - Moratorium] Resolution imposing interim 
zoning controls to prohibit new general advertising signs, as defined in Planning Code 
Section 602.7, from being erected or placed on any property in the City and County of 
San Francisco for a twelve-month period, and making findings of consistency with the 
priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1. (Supervisor Peskin) 

File: 012138 [General Advertising Sign Interim Order] Resolution imposing an order 
prohibiting action on applications for permits for general advertising signs, as defined in 
San Francisco Planning Code Section 602.7, in the City and County of San Francisco, 
while the Board of Supervisors considers adoption of interim zoning controls governing 
such general advertising signs; and making a finding of consistency with the priority 
policies of Planning Code Section 101.1. (Supervisor Peskin) 

A copy of these measures may be reviewed or obtained during normal business hours 
at the Clerk's Office, Board of Supervisors, Room 244, City Hall, San Francisco, CA 
94102. For more information, telephone (415) 554-5184. 

Persons who are unable to attend the hearing may submit written comments regarding 
these matters prior to the beginning of the hearing. These comments will become part 
of the official public record. 



Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 
Posted: January 31 , 2002 

9-day Notice 



City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Clerk: GailJohnson 



Wednesday, February 13, 2002 



12:30 PM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Aaron Peskin, Chris Daly, Sophie Maxwell. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 12:43 p.m. 

020077 [Lease of Real Property] 

Resolution authorizing extension of a lease of real property at 617-623 Mission/101 New Montgomery Streets 
for the Department of Child Support Services. (Real Estate Department) 
1/17/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marc McDonald, Director of Property, Real 
Estate Division, Department of Administrative Services. 
RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



020093 [Airport Revenue Bonds] 

Resolution approving a form of Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement relating to the Airport 

Subordinate Commercial Paper Notes; approving the issuance of up to $2,000,000,000 additional aggregate 

principal amount of San Francisco International Airport Second Series Revenue Refunding Bonds for the 

purpose of refinancing 1991 Resolution Bonds and Subordinate Bonds of the Airport Commission; approving 

the time for sale of Refunding Bonds as ending March 31, 2006; approving a final maturity date of Refunding 

Bonds of not later than May 1, 2040; and approving certain amendments to the 1991 Master Resolution and the 

1997 Master Subordinate Resolution in connection therewith. (Airport Commission) 

1/16/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Han'ey Rose, Budget Analyst: John Martin; Leo Fermin, Chief Financial 

Manager, Airport; Nancy Wuerfel; Eileen Boken; Edward Harrington, Controller. 

Question divided. Question concerning approval of $1.6 billion severed and considered separately. Sec File 

020287. 

DIVIDED. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at f:59 P.\f on .? 2 1)4 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



February 13, 2002 



020287 



Resolution approving a form of Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement relating to the Airport 
Subordinate Commercial Paper Notes; approving the issuance of up to $400,000,000 additional aggregate 
principal amount of San Francisco International Airport Second Series Revenue Refunding Bonds for the 
purpose of refinancing 1991 Resolution Bonds and Subordinate Bonds of the Airport Commission; approving 
the time for sale of Refunding Bonds as ending March 31, 2006; approving a final maturity date of Refunding 
Bonds of not later than May 1, 2040; and approving certain amendments to the 1991 Master Resolution and the 
1997 Master Subordinate Resolution in connection therewith. (Airport Commission) 

Amended by adding the following: "FURTHER RESOLVED, That this resolution does not provide the Airport 
Commission with any new or additional appropriation authority for any new or continuing projects. " 
AMENDED. 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



[Airport Revenue Bonds] 

Resolution approving a form of Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement relating to the Airport 
Subordinate Commercial Paper Notes; approving the issuance of up to $1,600,000,000 additional aggregate 
principal amount of San Francisco International Airport Second Series Revenue Refunding Bonds for the 
purpose of refinancing 1991 Resolution Bonds and Subordinate Bonds of the Airport Commission; approving 
the time for sale of Refunding Bonds as ending March 31, 2006; approving a final maturity date of Refunding 
Bonds of not later than May 1, 2040; and approving certain amendments to the 1991 Master Resolution and the 
1997 Master Subordinate Resolution in connection therewith. 



Divided from File 020093. 

CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



020097 [Reserved Funds, Airport Commission] 

Hearing to request release of reserved AIP grant funds, Airport Commission (File 011715: Resolution No. 826- 
01), in the amount of $7,125,000 to fund the FAA mandated security projects. (Airport Commission) 
1/16/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; John Martin, Airport Director, Nancy Wuerfel. 
Release of reserved funds in amount of $7, J 2 1,81 3 approved. 
APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco 



Primed at 5:59 PM on 3/2/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



February 13, 2002 



012282 [2002 Water Revenue Bonds Issuance] 

Resolution approving the issuance of not to exceed $164,000,000 aggregate principal amount of San Francisco 
water revenue bonds to be issued by the Public Utilities Commission of the City and County of San Francisco; 
affirming covenants contained in the indenture pursuant to which the water revenue bonds are issued; and 
authorizing the taking of appropriate actions in connection therewith; and related matters. (Public Utilities 
Commission) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

12/19/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

1/30/02, AMENDED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Kingsley Okereke, Director of Finance, Public 

Utilities Commission; Theodore Lakey, Deputy City Attorney. 

Amended on page 2, line 3, by replacing "$140,000,000" with "$164,000,000." 

Continued to 2/13/02. 

1/30/02, CONTINUED AS AMENDED. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Kingsley Okereke, Director of Finance, Public 
Utilities Commission; Karen Kubick, CIP Manager, Public Utilities Commission; Edward Harrington, 
Controller; Patricia Martel, General Manager, Public Utilities Commission. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



012159 [San Francisco Water Alliance] 
Supervisor Leno 

Hearing to consider the progress of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's contract revisions with the 

San Francisco Water Alliance. 

12/3/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Supervisor Leno requests that this item be referred to the Finance 

Committee. 

12/19/01 , CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Patricia Martel, General Manager, Public Utilities 

Commission; Leslie Abbott, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21. 

2/6/02, CONTINUED. Speakers: None, 

Continued to 2/13/02. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Patricia Martel, General Manager, Public Utilities Commission; John 
Oman, Bay Area Water Users; Jim Mathias, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce; David Novogrodsky. 
Executive Director, Local 21. 
FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



012137 [General Advertising Signs - Interim Control] 
Supervisor Peskin 

Resolution imposing interim zoning controls to prohibit new general advertising signs, as defined in Planning 

Code Section 602.7, from being erected or placed on any property in the City and County of San Francisco for 

a twelve-month period, and making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 

101.1. 

12/3/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Housing, Transportation and Land Use Committee. 12/10/01 -Transmitted to Director of 

Planning for environmental review. 

1/28/02, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 1/30/02 - Received a Certificate of Exemption/Exclusion from Environmental Review 

from the Planning Department dated January 23, 2002. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Dede Wortman, San Francisco Beautiful; Brendan Hallinan. co-owner. San 
Francisco Wallsacpes; Dean Arbey, co-owner, San Francisco IVallsacpes. 
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed al 5:59 P.\i on .1/2 (U 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes February 13, 2002 

Resolution imposing interim zoning controls establishing a requirement for conditional use authorization for 
general advertising signs, as defined in Planning Code Section 602.7, in the City and County of San Francisco 
until the date that the election results for the March 5, 2002 Consolidated Primary Election are certified, and 
making findings of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1. 
REFERRED WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



012138 [General Advertising Sign Interim Order] 
Supervisor Peskin 

Resolution imposing an order prohibiting action on applications for permits for general advertising signs, as 

defined in San Francisco Planning Code Section 602.7, in the City and County of San Francisco, while the 

Board of Supervisors considers adoption of interim zoning controls governing such general advertising signs; 

and making a finding of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1. 

12/3/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Housing, Transportation and Land Use Committee. 12/10/01 - Transmitted to Director of 

Planning for environmental review. 

1/28/02, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 1/30/02 - Received a Certificate of Exemption/Exclusion from Environmental Review 

from the Planning Department dated January 23, 2002. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Dede Wortman, San Francisco Beautiful; Brendan Hallinan, co-owner, San 
Francisco Wallsacpes; Dean Arbey, co-owner, San Francisco Wallsacpes. 
AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Resolution imposing an order establishing a requirement for conditional use authorization for permits for 
general advertising signs, as defined in San Francisco Planning Code Section 602.7, in the City and County of 
San Francisco, while the Board of Supervisors considers adoption of interim zoning controls governing such 
general advertising signs; and making a finding of consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code 
Section 101.1. 

REFERRED WITHOUT RECOMMENDATION by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at 4:07 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 4 Printed at 5:59 PM on 3/2/04 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 



1 



CITY AND COUNTY 




OF SAN FRANCISCO 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 
FAX (415) 252-0461 



TO: -Finance Committee 

FROM: Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 1 - File 02-0077 



February 7, 2002 

DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

FEB t 3 2002 



SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



Departments: 



Item: 



Location: 



Purpose of Lease: 
Lessor: 

Lessee: 

Term of Proposed 
Extension: 

Description: 



Department of Administrative Services, Real Estate 

Division (RED) 
Department of Child Support Services (DCSS) 

Resolution authorizing an extension to an existing lease 
at 101 New Montgomery Street, also known as 617 
through 623 Mission Street, for the Department of Child 
Support Services. 

A portion of the ground floor plus the entire second, third 
and fourth floors, plus basement storage space at 101 
New Montgomery Street located on the southeast corner 
of Mission Street and New Montgomery Street. 

To provide space for DCSS operations. 

Edward J. Conner and Douglas C. Moore, as Co-Trustees 
under The Conner Children Trust No. 2 

City and County of San Francisco on behalf of DCSS 

Five years beginning August 1, 2002 and ending July 31, 
2007. 

The proposed resolution would authorize the extension of 
an existing full service lease at 101 New Montgomery 
Street for a period of five years for DCSS. The lease would 
establish a new annual base rent of approximately $1.65 
per square foot per month, or S19.79 per square foot per 
year (see Comment No. 1). 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

No. of Sq. Ft. and 33,998 square feet at a base rent of $56,097 per month, or 

Kental Cost approximately $1.65 per square foot per month, totaling 

To The City: $673,160 per year. Mr. Charlie Dunn of the RED advises 

that the subject lease is a full service lease in which the 
$1.65 per square foot base rent includes all operating 
costs and real estate taxes ("Operating Expenses") to be 
paid by the Landlord. Operating costs include but are not 
limited to utilities (excluding electricity — see Additional 
Utility Costs Section), janitorial services and supplies, 
and garbage disposal services; general maintenance, 
cleaning and service contracts; required insurance; wages, 
salaries and other labor costs and employee benefits for 
security personnel; reasonable management fees; costs of 
independent contractors engaged by the Landlord; and 
accounting and legal expenses. 

The City currently pays approximately $1.44 per square 
foot per month, or $48,968 per month, totaling $587,620 
per year, which includes $1.25 per square foot in base 
rent plus $0.19 per square foot for increased Operating 
Expenses. Under the proposed lease extension, the City 
would pay approximately $1.65 per square foot per 
month, or $56,097 per month, in base rent. Therefore, the 
City would pay an additional $0.21 or 14.6 percent more 
in rent on a per square foot per month basis (an increase 
from $1.44 to $1.65). According to Mr. Dunn, the City 
would pay an additional $0.21 per square foot per month 
($1.65 less $1.44) in base rent under the terms of the 
proposed lease extension because the base rent of $1.65 
under the proposed lease extension represents the 
adjustment for the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the 
San Francisco Metropolitan Area since the existing lease 
began on March 1, 1995. This CPI adjustment is in 
accordance with the lease provisions. Mr. Dunn advises 
that the proposed 2002 base rent of $1.65 is below fair 
market value for comparable office space in the South of 
Market area. Mr. Dunn states that the fair market value 
is at least $2.25 per square foot. The $1.65 per square foot 
base rent includes all Operating Expenses except 
electricity costs (see Additional Utility Costs Section). 

Mr. Dunn explains that the base rent of $1.65 would 
remain constant throughout the proposed five-year lease 
extension. However, beginning August 1, 2003, for years 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



two through five of the lease extension, the City would be 
obligated to pay additional rent equal to a percentage 
share of any increase in the lessor's Operating Expenses 
above what is already included in the base rent. There is 
no limitation as to what such additional increased costs 
may be charged to the City. Under the existing lease, 
according to Mr. Dunn, the annual increase in additional 
rent paid by the City has averaged $0,032 per square foot 
per year (see "Additional Rent" below). According to Mr. 
Dunn, the payment of additional rent for increased 
Operating Expenses is a standard provision for full 
service leases. 



Additional Utility 
Costs: 



Additional Rent: 



The DCSS's percentage share of the total rentable space 
under the proposed lease extension at 101 New 
Montgomery Street is approximately 59 percent, or 
33,998 square feet out of a total 57,624 square feet of 
rentable space. Therefore, DCSS would be required to pay 
approximately 59 percent of any increase in Operating 
Expenses above what is already included in the base rent 
(see "Additional Rent" below). 

Under the provisions of the original lease agreement, 
which would also apply to the proposed lease extension, 
the City pays for electricity costs. Mr. Dunn advises that 
electricity costs are anticipated to total $30,000 for Fiscal 
Year 2002-2003, or $2,500 per month. Such costs would be 
included in DCSS's Fiscal Year 2002-2003 budget. 

Upon the completion of the first lease extension year on 
July 31, 2003, the City would pay to the Landlord each 
month, as additional rent above the $1.65 per square foot 
per month base rent, one-twelth of DCSS's percentage 
share of approximately 59 percent of the amount, if any, 
by which the Operating Expenses exceed the base year 
Operating Expenses. For the seventh and final year of the 
existing lease, or August 1, 2001 through July 31, 2002, 
Operating Expenses are estimated at $0.44 per square 
foot per month, which is comprised of $0.25 as part of the 
original base rent and $0.19 in increased Operating 
Expenses above the base rent. The $0.19 per square foot 
per month for increased Operating Expenses has 
accumulated over a six-year period during the term of the 
original lease. The $1.65 per square foot per month base 
rent in the first year of the proposed lease extension 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Right of Renewal: 

Tenant 
Improvements: 

Source of Funds: 



Comments: 



Recommendation: 



includes an estimated $0.44 per square foot per month, for 
Operating Expenses. 

None. 



None. 

The cost of the proposed five-year lease extension would 
be funded as follows: (a) 66 percent from the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services, and (b) 34 
percent from the State Department of Child Support 
Services. Ms. Karen Rove of DCSS advises that no 
General Fund monies would be required for the subject 
lease extension. According to Ms. Roye, the Federal and 
State agencies are currently funding the cost of the 
existing lease and it is anticipated that these agencies 
would continue to fund the cost of the proposed extension 
on an annual basis. Ms. Roye advises that Federal and 
State funds in the amount of $666,035 will be included in 
the Department's Fiscal Year 2002-2003 budget for one 
month of the existing lease agreement and 11 months of 
the proposed lease extension. 

1. The term of the existing seven year and five month 
lease began on March 1, 1995 and expires on July 31, 
2002. According to the provisions of the existing lease, the 
City has the option to extend the lease for an additional 
five-year term, beginning August 1, 2002, as proposed by 
this resolution. 

2. The existing lease for 33,998 square feet at 101 New 
Montgomery Street consists of (a) 5,219 square feet on the 
ground floor for a receptionist, two security guards and 
other DCSS functions including waiting areas and a 
children's playroom, and (b) a total of 28,779 square feet 
of office space on the second, third and fourth floors for 
program operations. Ms. Roye advises that the DCSS 
currently has a total of 135 City employees occupying the 
28,779 square feet of office space on the second, third and 
fourth floors, resulting in an average of 213 square feet 
per employee. According to Mr. Ken Chopping of the RED, 
the existing lease and proposed lease extension include 
basement storage space at no additional rental cost to the 
City. 

Approve the proposed resolution. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002, Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 2 - File 02-0093 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 

Source of Funds: 
Description: 



Airport 

Resolution (a) approving a form of Letter of Credit and 
Reimbursement Agreement relating to the Airport 
Subordinate Commercial Paper Notes; (b) approving the 
issuance of up to $2,000,000,000 additional aggregate 
principal amount of San Francisco International Airport 
Second Series Revenue Refunding Bonds for the purpose 
of refinancing 1991 Resolution Bonds and Subordinate 
Bonds of the Airport Commission; (c) approving the time 
for sale of Refunding Bonds as ending March 31, 2006; (d) 
approving a final maturity date of Refunding Bonds of not 
later than May 1, 2040; and (e) approving certain 
amendments to the 1991 Master Resolution and the 1997 
Master Subordinate Resolution in connection therewith. 

Not to exceed $2,000,000,000 in additional San Francisco 
International Airport Second Series Revenue Refunding 
Bonds. 

San Francisco International Airport Second Series 
Revenue Refunding Bonds. 

The proposed resolution provides for the approval of a 
new Letter of Credit and Reimbursement Agreement 
(Letter of Credit) for the Airport's Commercial Paper 
Program, additional Airport Refunding Bond 
authorization, an extension of the Airport's Refunding 
Bond authority and other changes to the 1991 Master 
Bond Authorization Resolution and the 1997 Master 
Subordinate Resolution. The 1991 Master Bond 
Authorization Resolution provided for the issuance of San 
Francisco International Airport Second Series Revenue 
Bonds (1991 Resolution Bonds). The 1997 Master 
Subordinate Resolution provided for the issuance of San 
Francisco International Airport Subordinate Revenue 
Bonds (Subordinate Bonds). 

Letter of Credit 

The proposed Resolution would authorize the Airport to 
enter into a new Letter of Credit with Westdeutsche 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

5 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002, Finance Committee Meeting 



Landesbank Girozentrale and other banks 1 . The proposed 
Letter of Credit has a limit amount of $400,000,000. The 
Letter of Credit would provide security for the payment of 
principal and interest on up to $400,000,000 of 
Commercial Paper to be issued by the Airport from April 
12, 2002 through March 31, 2006. 

Commercial paper is a short-term financing instrument 
used by both corporations and municipal issuers as bridge 
financing until long-term financing is issued. It is used 
on an as-needed basis to meet short-term cash demands. 
Commercial Paper maturities range from one to 270 days. 
The term and interest rate of each Commercial Paper sale 
is determined on the day of the sale, and varies according 
to the Airport's cash needs and market conditions. 
According to Mr. Leo Fermin of the Airport, Commercial 
Paper can be used as a short-term, low-cost source of 
capital financing prior to the receipt of: (a) Federal 
monies; or (b) proceeds from the sale of long-term 
Revenue Bonds intended to finance capital projects. The 
proposed new Letter of Credit, which has a limit of 
$400,000,000, is the equivalent of a line of credit for the 
Airport's Commercial Paper Program, guaranteeing that 
the Commercial Paper buyers will be repaid immediately 
on each roll date (the maturity date for a Commercial 
Paper Note when it becomes due for resale at a new rate). 

The Board of Supervisors previously authorized the 
Airport to issue up to $400,000,000 in aggregate principal 
amount of Airport Subordinate Commercial Paper Notes 
("Commercial Paper") on June 23, 1997 (Resolution No. 
620-97), secured by a Letter of Credit. Mr. Fermin advises 
that currently, approximately $165 million in Commercial 
Paper debt is outstanding. The current Letter of Credit 
with Societe Generale for the Commercial Paper is due to 
expire on April 12, 2002. Mr. Fermin further advises that 
in order to continue issuing Commercial Paper after April 
12, 2002, a replacement Letter of Credit must be 
obtained. In the event that the Airport's current Letter of 
Credit were to expire without a' new Letter of Credit, 



1 Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale is the lead bank in a consortium of banks made up of: 
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale, Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale, BNP Paribas, 
Landesbank Baden Wurttemburg, JP Morgan Chase Bank, and State Street Bank and Trust 
Company. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

6 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002, Finance Committee Meeting 



according to Mr. Fermin, the Airport would have to 
immediately payoff the §165 million in outstanding 
Commercial Paper debt at current interest rates, which 
may not be most favorable. 

Additional Refunding Bond Authorization 

Section 4.115 of the Charter grants the Airport 
Commission (the "Airport") the authority to issue 
Revenue Bonds for Airport-related purposes, subject to 
the approval of the Board of Supervisors. Section 2.62 of 
the Administrative Code provides that such Revenue 
Bonds shall bear a rate of interest not to exceed the 
interest rate approved by the Board of Supervisors in a 
resolution authorizing the issuance of the bonds. The 
Airport has set a not-to-exceed interest rate of 12 percent 
in accordance with State bond regulations for the subject 
proposed $2,000,000,000 in San Francisco International 
Airport Second Series Revenue Refunding Bonds 
(Refunding Bonds). 

The proposed resolution would also authorize up to 
$2,000,000,000 in additional Airport Revenue Refunding 
Bonds for the purpose of refinancing San Francisco 
International Airport Second Series Revenue Bonds (1991 
Resolution Bonds) and San Francisco International 
Airport Second Series Subordinate Revenue Bonds 
(Subordinate Bonds). According to Mr. Fermin, the 1991 
Resolution Bonds and Subordinate Bonds to be refinanced 
were originally issued for: BART to the Airport 
construction projects, the Airport's Rental Car Facility, 
Noise Insulation, Near-Term Master Plan projects, and 
other Airport capital improvement projects. Mr. Fermin 
reports that under the proposed new Letter of Credit, 
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale requires that the 
Airport have refunding authority for the total amount of 
$400,000,000 in previously authorized Commercial Paper, 
which would be secured by the subject Letter of Credit. 
Mr. Fermin advises that the additional Refunding Bond 
authority in the amount of $1,600,000,000, to make up a 
total of $2,000,000,000, would provide the Airport with 
the flexibility to refinance previously issued debt in the 
event that interest rates become favorable such that there 
would be net present value savings if Refunding Bonds 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

7 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002, Finance Committee Meeting 



were issued to refinance existing bonds. Board of 
Supervisors review and approval would not be required 
prior to any actual sale of Refunding Bonds. 

Extension of Refunding Bond Authority 

On July 20, 1998, the Board of Supervisors authorized the 
Airport to issue, from time to time, on or before December 
31, 2001, up to $1,400,000,000 in Airport Revenue 
Refunding Bonds with a final maturity date of May 1, 
2032, pursuant to Resolution No. 583-98, of which 
$400,000,000 was authorized to refund the maximum 
amount of the Airport's Commercial Paper Program 
previously authorized by the Board of Supervisors. The 
Refunding Bonds were originally intended to provide long 
term refinancing, if necessary or desirable, in order to 
effect debt service savings, by redeeming outstanding 
debt, including Commercial Paper debt. 

Subsequently, on March 15, 1999, the Board of 
Supervisors authorized the extension of the Airport's 
Revenue Refunding Bonds authorization to x<Ypril 30, 
2003. The proposed resolution would extend the 
authorization for issuance of the Refunding Bonds for 35 
months, from April 30, 2003 to March 31, 2006. 
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale has requested 
this extension as a condition of issuing the proposed new 
$400,000,000 Letter of Credit, which also has a term 
through March 31, 2006. Accordingly, the proposed 
resolution also provides for extending the final maturity 
date of Refunding Bonds from not later than May 1, 2032 
to not later than May 1, 2040, the date when the 
Refunding Bonds must be fully redeemed. 

Other Changes 

The proposed resolution also approves amendments to the 
1991 Master Bond Authorization Resolution and the 1997 
Master Subordinate Resolution in order that these 
resolutions are consistent with the new proposed Letter of' 
Credit and proposed new additional and extended 
Refunding Bond authorization. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002, Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. Attachment I, provided by the Airport, provides details 

on which bonds have been refunded under the current 
Refunding Bond authorization. According to Mr. Fermin 
and as shown in Attachment I, the 1991 Resolution Bonds 
and Subordinate Bonds refinanced under the current 
Refunding Bond authorization were issued for: BART to 
the Airport construction projects, the Airport's Rental Car 
Facility, Noise Insulation, Near-Term Master Plan 
projects, and other Airport capital improvement projects. 
Mr. Fermin further states that the revenue bond proceeds 
for the aforementioned projects were previously 
appropriated by the Board of Supervisors in 1992 and 
1998. As shown in Attachment I, provided by Mr. 
Fermin, the Airport has issued $756,510,000 in Refunding 
Bonds, with $643,490,000 remaining under the current 
$1,400,000,000 Refunding Bond authorization. However, 
Mr. Fermin advises that the Airport is planning to 
exhaust the remaining $643,490,000 authorization for 
Refunding Bonds in February 2002, depending on market 
conditions. 

2. According to Mr. Fermin, the average interest rate on 
the 1991 Resolution Bonds and Subordinate Bonds is 
5.56%. Mr. Fermin further states that the current annual 
debt service of 1991 Resolution Bonds, Subordinate Bonds 
and Refunding Bonds is approximately $265,000,000 on 
the $4,099,410,000 in outstanding Revenue Bonds. As 
shown in Attachment I, refinancing under the current 
Refunding Bond authorization has resulted in a Net 
Present Value Savings of $27,958,614. Mr. Fermin reports 
that under the proposed Refunding Bond Authorization, 
the Airport would refinance current debt depending on 
market interest rates and the interest rates at which the 
original bonds were sold. Mr. Fermin advises that market 
conditions would have to be favorable to achieve net 
present value savings, but that there is no set time 
schedule to refinance under the proposed Refunding Bond 
Authorization. 

3. According to Mr. Fermin, the Airport issued a Request 
for Proposals (RFP) to 19 firms as listed in Attachment II, 
provided by the Airport, for a replacement Letter of 
Credit, and received one proposal. Westdeutsche 
Landesbank Girozentrale et al, the only bank consortium 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

9 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002, Finance Committee Meeting 



which responded to the RFP was selected by the Airport 
to provide the Letter of Credit. According to Mr. Fermin, 
the Airport received only one proposal because of the 
current market conditions. Attachment III, provided by 
the Airport, provides further details on the RFP process 
and costs associated with the subject Letter of Credit. 
According to Mr. Fermin, the total costs associated with 
the new Letter of Credit will depend on the amount of 
Commercial Paper the Airport issues. As stated in 
Attachment III, Mr. Fermin further advises that if the 
Airport utilized $200,000,000 in Commercial Paper, the 
total cost to the Airport would be approximately 
$2,200,000 annually or 1.1 percent. Ms. Monique Moyer 
of the Mayor's Office of Public Finance advises that the 
cost proposal for the Letter of Credit is reasonable and 
competitive in today's market. 

4. According to Mr. Fermin, Westdeutsche Landesbank 
Girozentrale requires that the Airport have Refunding 
Bond authority covering the entire term of the letter of 
credit, from April 12, 2002, through March 31, 2006, to 
ensure that if the Letter of Credit is drawn upon, the 
Airport will be able to issue Refunding Bonds to secure 
the Letter of Credit. In addition, Mr. Fermin reports that 
the Airport is requesting changing the final maturity date 
of the Refunding Bonds from not later than May 1, 2032 
to not later than May 1, 2040 in order to correspond with 
the date that the Refunding Bonds must be fully 
redeemed. 



Recommendation: Approve the proposed resolution. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

10 



Attachment I 

Page 1 of 2 



SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

Current Refunding Bond Authorization 
__ January 30, .2002 "_ 



Currcn: Authorization (A) 



si.ioo.oon.ooo.oo 



Issue 20 
Issue 27 
Total (B) 



Par 

Amount 

S267.9S5,000.00 
S4S8 : 525,000,00 
5756.510.000.00 



Net Present 
Value Savings 
SI9,~<39 r 21 3 2T 

SS.lS9.AQ0.5d 
S27,9SS ! <5ij.S3 



Remaining Authorization (A) - (B) f 5^3.^90.000.00 | 



Issue 


20 Bonds Refunded 


Issue 


Bond Type 


1 


Non-Master Plan 


2 


Non-Master Plan 


3 


Non-Master Plan 


4. 


N"on-Mastcr Plan 


3B 


Master Plan 


9B 


Master Plan 


10B 


Master Plan 


I2B 


Master Plan 







Issue 27 Bonds Refunded 




Issue 


Bond Type 




SB 


Muster Plan 




??. 


Master Plan 




102 


Master Plan 




1! 


Non-Master Plan (Noise Insulutioon) 




I2B 


Master Plan 




I2A 


Non-Master Plan (Rental Car Facility) 




1613 


Master Plan 1 




17 


Non-Master Plan (3AP..T) 




19 


Non-Master Plan. ("BART) 



Source: Airport 



11 



Page 2 of 2 



JJ 




c c 




















































r£ 




o 




o 


C3 




O =5 J— 


SI | 






CI 










S3 










r* — -t 


a 




=1 






'> — 






















r* 




— ■_> 
















r-* 








s 




3 5 


s/> 




















■»^ 


t; 




- o 
























C 














































































■J 


























— 


— 


y o 




^ 


^ 


^ 


^ 


*-> .— , 






^^ 


^_ ( 




■Q 


























o-. 


















rs ■*■* 


W-tl T 








r~ 






























| 


~ e 


S 2 


M 






















oi. 


























2 




















































H 


























Z 


























■o 


























c 


























i* 


a 9 


II 


,_, 


^ 


O 


^ 


■w O ""i 


1 S 


^ 


z 


€1 


SO 


2 


VI 


t-J 


c* 


- 


•c -<r v-i 


sS 


1 




Z 




= 1 ~* 




















v^ 




























3 


























o 


























c- 


























2 




© s 

























i + 


£3 


<~* 


~ 


3 


c^ 


CO 


OO ^ o 


SOI -y 

en 


rs 


o 




so 


5 


























~ 


























s 














































































f 


fc] 


C4 — 

2 a 


SO 

; ** 


r-* 


|-N| 


O 


2 


r4 so o 


CI <N 


- 


o 


^ 


rsl 


i 




Cj £ 












































































« 


























cl 


























^ 




U 


' n 


_ 


o 


fH 


fS 


vO CO O 


SCI CI 


_ 


o 


^ 


<a- 


2 


G 


| 


fst 

*** 


- 






r-i 




O 






O 
4^» 






13 ; 














































o\ 






o n 






















w" ( 












C-* 


OO 


r- 


r* r* r^ 


—1 S3 




o 


s^l 


T 




.. D 






Oa 


f\ 


■O 


-r 


VO O T 


Ol SO 


C?v 












9 5 




r". 


C4 








rs\ 






1 


3 






li U I 


























, 


























JJ,"iJ 
























3 










r%l 


O 




T O V3 


—1 <-i 












cs 
















v-. rn 


fn 




1 








2 —1 
























£ 




U £. 


<^> 
















— 






SL. 




















































2 


























z 






























*o — 




















































































3 


CO 


_ 


^y 


p. 


o 


OQ <-* «-% 


1 s 


SO 


_ 


CI 


„ 




< 




CO 


wt 


r^ 




O 




s-l 


o 




o 








. CO 




(H 


fS 






^^ e~J 














s 'i 














r* 








8 






























■ 




is: s 


























- 














































































< 






P Z 




















^ 






ii 




= 




< 


_ 










—. 






.5 




u — 






•■ 










ra 






-£ 




— c 
















o 






3 




„ w £ 




1 


g 


^ 
















04 






U 


'J 
















•a 














































« 




>» 


| 


2 


U. ^ .= 


•J 


2 


1 


1 








*~l i « 


'5 


> 


.5 


Bfl 




£ 2 


S 


iO 


_C 


^ 






ai i v 


c 




:| 




? 5 ^ 


■= c^ 


u 


J 


2 


s 






(_1 | i- 


< 


- 


5 


° 


£ £ < 


O 


~ 


2 


Zj 





3 *H 

< "3 



I-f I 

■3 ^ 



2 "= V 



U 2 



if Ei 
I 2 c- 

Si o 



.fl | 

= = — 
'5, -^ 



M a I 



B i j ! J 



3 S U S 



" ^ Hi « 

<j ; c ■-. 



is 

§ I 

3 < 

z a 



" 3 i 

S 3 2 
a S o c 



12 



Attachment II 
Page 1 of 2 



Liquidity Providers 

Mr. Karsten D uhn, Assistant Vice President 
COMMERZBANK, A.G. 
New York Branch 

2 World Financial Center, 34 (h Floor 
New York, NY 10281-1050 
(212)266-7312 ! 

i 
Mr. William Hansen, Jr., Vice President 
MORGAN GUARANTY 
60 Wall Street, 33 rd Floor j 

New York, NY 10260-0060 , 

(212) 648-6819 \ 

Mr. Scott Allison, First Vice PresidentManager 

BAYERISCHE LANDESBANK | 

560 Lexington Avenue, 22 nd Floor 

New York, NY 10022 

(212)310-9869 



Mr. John Flaherty, Vice President/Manager 
DEXIA PUBLIC FINANCE BANK j 
445 Park Avenue, 7 th Floor 
New York, NY 10022-2606 j 

(212)515-7003 ;• 

I 

Mr. Robert O'Brien, Vice President ' ' 
LANDESBANK BADENWURTTEI\1BERG 

535 Madison Avenue 
New York, NY 10022 
(212)584-1785 j 

i 
Mr. Peter Tommaney, Managing Director 
THE TORONTO DOMINION BANK 
31 W. 52 nd Street, 18 th Floor ' • 

New York, NY 10019-6101 
(212)827-7741 



Ms. Patricia South, Vice President 

HELABA 

420 Fifth Avenue, 24 lh Floor 

NewYork, NY 10018 

(212)703-5310 



Mr. John Greenlee 

THE BANK OF NEW YORK 

700 South Flower Street Suite 500 
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
(213) 630-6265 

Mr. William Collins, 

Managing Director 

THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTLA. 

One Liberty Plaza, 26 th Floor 
New York, NY 10006 
(212) 225-5034 

Mr. Ronald Rumack, Director 
HYP O VEREINSB ANK 
150 E. 42 nd Street, 32 nd Floor 
New York, NY 10017 
(212) 672-5377 

Mr. David J, Spirakis, Managing Dir. 

WEST LB* 

1211 Ave. of the Americas 

New York, NY 10036-8701 

(212) 852-6324 

Mr. Buzz Snyder, Vice President 

SOCIETE GENERALE 

1221 Ave. of the Americas, 7 th Floor 

New York, NY 10020 

(212)278-5921 



Mr. Chris Baron, I 

ALLIED IRISH BANK 

601 S. Figueroa St., r 

Los Angeles, CA 90017. 

(213)593-4740, '. 

Aa3/P-1 (Moody's), A+/A-1 (S&P), AA-/F-1-!- 

(Fitch) ! 



"WEST LB= Westdeutsche Landesbar.k 

Girozentrade 



H-./Avcncgas/Liquidity Provider! *2 Rrviicd! UJ01.doc ; 



Source 
13 



Airoort 



Attachment ll 
Page 2 of 2 



Mr. Mitch Ozawa 
BNP Paribas 

725 South. Figueroa, 
Los Angeles, CA 90017 
(213) 688-6416. 

ra:2d Aa3/AA- 

Mr. Theodore Douglas, Managing Director 

STATE STREET BANK 

61 Broadway, 15 th Floor 

New York, NY 10006 

(212)612-3479 

Mr. Robert Larkins, Executive Director 

MORGAN STANLEY 

555 Cahfomia Street, Suite #2130 

San Francisco, CA 94104 

(415) 576-2086 

Scott Nagelson 
BANK OF AMERICA 

55 California Street, 12* Floor 
(CA5-705-12-25) ; 

S an Francisco, CA 94104 

Mr. Karsten Duhn 
COMMERZBANK 

1251 Avenue of the Americas, 22 nd Floor 
New York, New York 10020 
(212) 400-5883 



Mr. Robert DeMichael ; 

SALOMON SMITH BARNEY/CITIGROUP 

390 Greenwich Street, 2 nd Floor 
New York, New York 10013 



Mr, Cameron Parks 

PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 

505 Montgomery Street, #800 
San Francisco, CA 94111 
(415)982-5544 



14 

Hi/Avcnegai/Licyidiry Providers *2 fcvisctfll '.301. do: 



Page 1 of 2 



SFO 



San rrancisco International Airport 



tlRPOST 
AMISSION 



«ry mi:;ou 
■icr mevoftn 






VIA FAX 



January 29. 2002 



r-.O ?.uj. 3fM7 
.vvv\v flv.In :-r.m 



Ms. Sara Graham 

Budget Analyst 

Harvey Rose Accountancy Corp 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025 

San Francisco, California C ;4102 

Dear Ms. Graham- 

1 am writing in response to your request for a written explanation of the process 
conducted to selecr the Airport's proposed letter-of-Credit Provider. 

By Resolution No. 01-0333, the Commission authorized Airport staff to solicit 
proposals from Letter of Credit ("LOC") facility providers for the Airport's 
Commercial Paper Program ("Program"). An RF? seeking either a S300 million or 
S400 million irrevocable direct pay LOC was sent to 19 banks with credit ratings of 
at least A-l/Pl from Moody's investors Service and Standard &. Poor's Ratings 
Services, respectively. One proposal, which consisted of a syndicate of six banks, 
led by Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale ("West LB") was received on 
November 2S, 2001. Other members of the syndicate include: Bayerische 
Landesbank Girozentrale (-BLB"). BNP Paribas CBNP"). Landesbank Baden 
Wurttemburg ('LBBW'). JPMorgan Chase Bank ('Morgan'), and State Street Bank 
and Trust Company ('State Street"). 

The Airport Commission approved entering into an agreement with the West LB 
syndicate as this was the only proposal received through the RFP process. 
Previously, the current LOC provider (Societs General) submitted a proposal for 
renev.-al, which stalT rejected because of its conditions, which were not financially 
feasible to meet. 

The Commercial P?.per Program requires, as backing, a direct-pay. irrevocable letter 
of credit The CP Program is an important low-cost financing mechanism that the 
Airport uses to fund the airfield Development Program and various capital projects 

The Airport will select a term of up to 4 years and up to S400 million To minimize 
the Airport's cost, the Agreement contains two separate facilities: One for the 
utilized Letter of Credit (75 basis points per annum) ("bppa") and on; for the 
unutiiized facility (30 bppa). Additional fees include a S250 draw fee, S2.500 per 
bank transfer fee (in the event the Issuing and Paying Agent chances), a rial 

15 



Page 2 of 2 



Ms. Sara Graham 
January 29. 2002 
Page 2 

origination fee of 2bp. an annual Agent Fee of S30.000 and a S2,500 per bank fee 
for an amer.dir.enr to the Agreement Because this was the only proposal received 
through a competitive process, staff believes the proposed fees are competitive and 
reasonable 

The cost to the Airport will depend in large pan on the amount of Commercial 
Paper the Airport issues. As an example, the total cost to utilize S200 million of the 
facility would be approximately S2.2 million annually. 

Very truly vours, 
/ 



Leo Fermin 

Associate Deputy Airport Director 

Business and Finance 



Budacts\x\SaraGr:iham.(!oc 



16 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 3 - File 02-0097 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Required Match: 



Description: 



Airport 

Hearing to consider the release of $7,125,000 of the 
$8,324,790 in reserved Airport Improvement Program 
(AIP) grant funds for five security projects associated with 
new Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) mandated 
security requirements. 

$7,125,000 

$8,324,790 in AIP grant funds previously reserved by the 
Board of Supervisors. Airport Commercial Paper would be 
used to advance funds for the projects and the AIP grant 
funds would reimburse the Airport's Commercial Paper 
Fund (see Comment No. 5). 

$2,373,937 or 25 percent of the total security-related 
project costs estimated at $9,495,750 (see Comment No. 
6). 

In October of 2001, the Board appropriated and reserved 
$8,324,790 in AIP grant funds for two airport runway 
reconfiguration projects (File 01-1715). These grant funds 
were placed on reserve pending the selection of 
contractors and submission of budget details to the 
Finance Committee. The total estimated cost of the two 
Airport runway reconfiguration projects is $11,099,720, of 
which $8,324,790 or 75 percent was to be funded by the 
FAA from the currently reserved AIP grant funds and 
$2,774,930 or 25 percent in Airport matching funds was to 
be funded by Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenues 
placed on reserve by the Board of Supervisors in the 
Airport's Fiscal Year 2001-2002 budget (see Comment No. 
2). According to Mr. Leo Fermin of the Airport, the AIP 
generally provides for the reimbursement by the FAA of 
up to 75 percent of the eligible costs of Airport capital 
improvement projects. 

Due to the events of September 11, 2001, Mr. Fermin 
reports that the FAA is allowing the Airport to use a 
portion of the previously reserved AIP grant funds to pay 
for the security projects mandated by the Aviation and 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

17 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Transportation Security Act recently approved by 
Congress on November 19, 2001. Therefore, instead of 
using the entire amount of $8,324,790 in reserved AIP 
grant funds for the two runway reconfiguration projects 
as originally intended, the Airport is requesting that 
$7,125,000 in such grant funds be expended for the 
security projects as required by the FAA. 

Budget: Attachment I, provided by the Airport, is a budget for the 

FAA mandated security-related projects at a total cost of 
$9,495,750, including $7,121,813 1 or 75 percent from the 
subject requested previously reserved AIP grant funds 
and $2,373,937 or 25 percent from the Airport's 
Commercial Paper Fund. 

Comments: 1. Attachment I contains a list of the five subject security 

projects, a description of each project, total estimated 
project costs, the FAA share of each project, the Airport's 
match, and the estimated start and completion dates of 
the projects. 

2. Mr. Fermin reports that AIP grant funds totaling 
$8,324,790 were originally placed on reserve to fund 75 
percent of the total estimated project costs of $11,099,720 
for the following two airport runway reconfiguration 
projects: (1) preliminary engineering services to support 
the environmental evaluation of reconfiguring the 
Airport's existing four runways, and (2) environmental 
services to conduct field surveys and habitat studies of the 
potential runway reconfigurations, to identify other sites 
in the Bay Area to offset habitat loss from the 
reconfigured runways, and to prepare a Mitigation Plan 
for submittal to the Bay Conservation Development 
Commission and other regulatory agencies. 

As explained in a memorandum (Attachment II), 
according to Mr. Fermin, because of the importance and 
FAA requirements for the subject security projects, the 
preliminary engineering studies for the runway 
reconfiguration projects have been placed on hold. 



1 The Airport request of $7,125,000 is $3,187 more than the budget details of $7,121,813 submitted 
by the Airport. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

18 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



3. As shown in Attachment I, the Airport has begun the 
planning portions and the architectural/engineering 
portions of all of the subject security projects except the 
Airfield Rescue Firefighting Vehicle purchase. In 
addition, the Airport has selected contractors through 
competitive bidding processes for the project pertaining to 
perimeter security fencing. To date, the Airport has spent 
$387,646 for work done by in-house Airport staff and 
§28,903 for work done by a contractor, for a total of 
$416,549. Mr. Fermin reports that such expenditures 
have been paid for by Airport Commercial Paper Program 
funds and wculd be reimbursed by the subject reserved 
grant funds. 

According to Mr. Fermin, all outside contractors have 
been and will be selected through a competitive bidding 
process. As shown in Attachment I, all of the security 
projects are to be completed by September of 2004. 

4. Attachment III is a memorandum from Mr. Fermin 
further explaining the background related to these 
projects. 

5. Mr. Fermin reports that because the subject ATP grant 
funds are reimbursement-based, funds from the Airport's 
Commercial Paper Program previously approved by the 
Board of Supervisors in 1997 (Resolution No. 620-97) are 
initially being used to pay for the projects prior to FAA 
reimbursement. 

6. Mr. Fermin explains in a memorandum (Attachment 
IV) that the source of the required Airport matching funds 
totaling $2,373,938 will also initially be the Commercial 
Paper Fund. Mr. Fermin further explains in Attachment 
PV "That commercial paper would eventually roll into the 
Airport's long-term debt and be paid as part of debt 
service." xA.ccording to Mr. Fermin, the Airport is not able 
to use Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenues as the 
source of matching funds for these security-related 
projects because these security-related projects are not 
included in the FAA approved project list for use of PFC 
revenues. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

19 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

7. Although the Airport is requesting the release of 
$7,125,000 for five security-related projects, the budget 
details submitted by the Airport to the Budget Analyst 
(Attachment I) for the 75 percent AIP grant funds total 
$7,121,813. The Budget Analyst recommends that the 
Board of Supervisors release only $7,121,813 or $3,187 
less than the total requested amount of $7,125,000, 
consistent with the budget submitted by the Airport. 

Recommendations: 1. Release $7,121,813 or $3,187 less than the requested 

amount of $7,125,000 in accordance with Comment No. 7 
above. Continue to reserve $3,187. 

2. Because the requested grant funds were originally to 
have been used to reimburse the Airport for the cost of 
preliminary engineering services and environmental 
services related to two Airport runway reconfiguration 
projects, and the Airport now plans to put the preliminary 
engineering services on hold, we consider approval of this 
request to be a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors. 
However, it should be noted that the proposed security 
projects are mandated by the FAA. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

20 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 4 



CO 

o 

LU 

o 

a. 
< 

< 
en 
o 

LL. 
_J 
< 
CO 

O 

a. 
O 

Q. 

a 

LU 
CO 

> 

LU 



_ o 



o 

1.1 2^ 






3 S 



3- 

2 °"S 



.2 '=> '~o 



.2 '5 

•e a" 

S£2. 

< 



CO -r- ■*- S 



3 LU -O O 
2. < < O 



03 S .Q 

5 I I 



CO 03 



03 CO 

S lO 1) 

-2 aj u 

03 J= C 

.o « co 



.= — > 



c5 E 

03 to 



O CO 

■s ° -a 
c _ S 



>1 »i 
3 



co £ co 



ooooo 
S 2" 2" °- 3 

CO i— r— T3- LT3 



Cj CO 



to 


or. 






as 


b 




> 




C/3 


£ 


en 






EL 


























no 




□ 










i— 




>* 








T3 


<_> 




-Li 


■«■ 






en 


OS 


CJ 




n 




s 


CL 


g 




n 


B 




L3 


eg 


s 


TD 


"3 

CO 


a 




a 


CJL 




M 


















=5 
t/-> 


id 

CL 
CO 


s 

CO 
CO 


=> 


CO 


a 

a. 


03 






c_ 


e 


<J 




3 


e 
9 


JB 

_55 


O 


CO 


03 


75 
B 



CO -. CO 3 Q 2 

03 5 cj 'H ^- u 

S 03 X 25 =3 != 

O C 03 3 0. CO 



CO S 

"5 = 2 
2 o 5 



C LU CL 03 £ 
O oO w Q. -o 

o < = o < 



-S> E 





s 2 

g J 


CO 
Cl 
O) 

CL. 

TS 

03 


0) 

f 

■a 

03 






1-3 

CO 03 


T3 
03 

-CO 
03 


a 

03 
U 
X 






CL 2 


(J) 






o 

o 

CD 
CO 

1— 


E CL 
^ CO 

g F 


BJ 

s 

CO 


CO 

-a 

E 
CO 


2 

CO 
CL 
Cl 
IB 


LL, 

LL. 


3 JL3 

~ CO 


CL0Q 

<r co 

^ 03 


LL. 

LL. 








•■' 


< 


E £ 

2 tz 


55 

Q 




< 
03 












.c 

03 

•> 


•a x> 
S 2 
co co 


LL. 

o 


CO 

□ 


B 
o 


c 


s §■ 


co 


_) 

Q. 


co 




en" 03 


e 


ra 






| « 


.^-' 


S 






113 £ 


o 


n 




03 


o> co 


e 


o 


CO 


LL. 
03 


03 <o 

.9-5 


Cl 
CO 


E 

> 




o 
(/> 

03 

q: 
o> 


H 2, 

« CO 

§-g 

<? 3 . 
^ =5 


F 

Q3 

o 


— 
F 

E 

2 


CO 

aj 

n 
| 


t 


a 


o 




< 


t- = < 


£ 


CL 


s 



21 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 4 









CO 














CNI 


oi jc 














O | 


= 35 — 
,§I| 










3 




CNi oj 

l o 










-o 




t— CSI 


"- a 3 ^ 










"o 
CO 




• • 

2.1 

1 = 

ca o 

a. o 


D j o 
S = "S 

O 0) (U 
co 2 O o ^ 

o o ._ 03 ~3 

r- * CO to S 














o 












(A 




o 












£, "O 




C3 












O .i= 




o" 

a) 












9- = 




&<> 












.— a- 

•< o 
















a o 
















™ .- 


3 














s g 


u. 














<u *2 
















o o 
















O Q_ 
















_l 




















O 












■a 




O 

o 












U. CU 




CNJ 












~ a: 














c «_ 


T3 
















C 






























O 5 


ll 














o 
















Q- := 
















•5 "C 
















< o 
















a. 




















C3 












o 




C3 
















C3 












E 




o" 
















CO 












M 




</» 












3 
































M 
















o 
















o 






















35 














a: 

LU 
LLI 

s 


<£ .£ z ^ 














SL-g s: 12 




'o 

e 










LU 
0- 


■C •— CO = LL. CO 




CO 










3 9 5 = -*= * 














S 


O CO CO ^3 cz ^- / 




Q. 










o 


.2 co TO SC - ^ 
to >-» CO —J > "co 








o 




LL_ 

LU 




CO 
CO 


C3 

O O C3 


cz> 

a 


O 
cz> 


(/) 




o 




cn 


C3 O O 


a 


o 


o 




z 




a. 

3 


o" °- °. 


m" 


o 


Q. 




< 




in lo o 


■«• 


CO 






2 
LU 


o -c — ! • < 9 

cd 3 — < o, x 

F 1 § % 1 i 

Q_ CO CO "* X3 i 




"a 

cz 

CO 


^— T— CfJ 

fc"» fe^- &<> 


t>^ c=<> 


.22.= 

2 ° 




1— 

z 




.E-S 






°- ^9- 
u 




< CO 
ofl LU 


— t_ -s = Q 
B co vl= co S co 

U tz C7> C — ^t 

C 3 CZ TZI ■ 




= 1 






0) 




co o J3 cz -p; cnj 




■e co 






a 




q. e = c . tr 

v_ <J — CO Q 3 

co J£ "5 CO 2 O 




3 >, 










li 

LU O 
O LU 


9§ 
a 

■a 


co t= 

» 3 

CO CO 
CO <t 

e ^ 


B 

o 
IB 












.« oj-rr E O-D 
co c ° LU — ' CO 

1 •§ 1 1 1 1 

d, CO TO CO CO co 

g-gisl is S 

O *rr to CO to o 


co 

s 

o 
1— 


o 

I— 

hi 


c 

CO 

o 


E 

o 

"S 


cz >^ 

O O 

:a cz 

O CO 

3 ra 
^= cz 








o o 




a 


"53 




E 1 «8 


2 






< LU 




co 


Z3 


O O LU 


O 






U. CO 


CO _o .£ S = < 


< 


CL 


E 


tn 


o o < 


Lt_ 



22 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of 4 



t- S "2 

o m CO 
?= ■ 5 

T- CM < 

§ "33 

en 



2>co 



cos aiN c 

J2 LU -a Q o 
a. < < co cj 



o 


aj 




f> 




3 






'< 


CO 

0£ 


en 

T3 
C 


fe^ 




o 






s 


u. 




CO 


s 






o 


o 






o 


a. 







■a 



o 



3 



u. a> H' cm 

— q; .:= &■» 

- ° § 

C3 £ if 
< o 



•=• E 



-a S h- 



■"_:<» 



3 E 



« Q- 

.5!, c 



« 25 t-> 
CO aj g 



iif- 



•— o 

CO CO 



t i 



s i i«i 

ra B £ •§ .2 
.£ < S ra £ 

E? S ^"S 
a < ra-a o 
h- o >, 2: = 
u W S '5 '- 
S3 d* Z ST cn 

E U_ CD <- 



CO 

> 

.<2 TO 

S I 1 cj 

ro c 55 o 
cu ca ^ co 

- ' C CD CO 
c? 'eg ra cd 

t§5 

e/i V CO < 

£ ^ -~ U- 

■ ° s °° 

•^ E "co 
_ -a -a s 

" .!= <D "O 
TZJ Z3 f= 0) 

co S"<^ 

Q- in E?x: 
o co cd y 
» m e ~ 

ni CZ .H 



3 MOv- 



cn= 53 — 



CO 



CD 



It Olrf " 

E ■£ <£ 5 

co co U- S 

sS c o 

CO CD "~ "O 

"5 jr cj cj 



CD CO 
Q Q- > O -S: 



uj — z> ^ 
£ O eg § 

fill 



S i>-S 

i- CO Q_ — 

CO CD ~. < 

^ — 5 >- 

"cO g>££ 

= 1 £ § 

53 J5 = to 

O CO l_ — 

o> 3 8.J. 



alii 

N co cd ■— 

t n £ o 

O'ii 3 a 

=-.-□ "2 

E 



^z _^? 

nj co t co 

00 co £ h= 



CO 


CO 


— 


o 














s < 


=3 
CT 


ex 

CD 


_en 


o 












CD CO 








cz 












CZD ,L 




e 


hj 












co I 
0| 


| 

O 


CD 

E 

en 
en 


CO 

s 


E 

CO 














CO 




F 


































e E 

CJ < 


E 


co 

"en 

CO 
-Q 
CO 


5 


CZ 
CO 




c^ 








CD O 
— CD 

.S E? 


en 
o 
■g 


cz 
en 


CO 




CD 

a 

CZ5 

CO 


cz> 

CZl 

CD 

cd' 


CO 

o 

CO 


o 

CO 

o 

CNl' 


CD °± 














rt 


to 


CO 


co E 








o 




vt 


en 


<^> 


frt 


= UJ 


rr 






CD 












IS 

as 


E 

en 


e 

CO 
Q. 

F 


en 

cz 

en 


CD 
CD 












LA. 

07 


o 
Q 

o 

CO 


s 

3 


CD 

o 






























Jj CD 


o 

CM 


ZJ 


E 


o_ 




















































IN 


E 
















o 3 






o 












>, w 






e. 














;> 


_C0 
"CO 












d) 


oi-E 


n 

cr 


tn 


E 

o 


cz 


>-- 
e j 




1-C- 

"z 


CO ZJ 


n 








JZ 




B 






g o 


CO 




= 


F 


o 

ZJ 


pi 






o 53 


T3 

1) 


cz 

CO 


O 


£ 


S3 




cz 


s 




"3 "2 






CZ 


CD 


— 


.-> 


a 


1 ! 1 




o o 


-ci 




tj 


£ 


m 


u> 


CJ 


< 


(X 



23 



Attachment I 
Page 4 of 4 



C 

C — 



?3 73 



" 



CO ■= 

■a S 
3 ~S 



o 2 

s cr 

■5 o _ 






ca £ 



3 



< o 






s 

3 o 



ro & — 



£ CD 



= 2 S 6 8 "S 

CD O > " a-, 

a s J p a 



o E g - 
co o co tz cr 

C 3 CO O gj 

co cd 2? cd o 

03 c S'-C "D 
U O) n !" T3 

CO _• CJ O- C 
CD = 03 E ° 

ififi 

ill 

o e s 

a. 5j co 

8^ i 

^o CO '-5 

S "a 



5 .2 

= "o 

■= 03 

s a. 

l-i 

o cu 

= CD 

3 5 

c CO 

cu _a 



5 S" 
gj 

ca cd 

_ CD 

o ca 

o -a S .9 1 



" cu CO 

Qf . 

s? *- S 
s A 00 

O CD 

T3 U3 ~ 

.2 -=: " 
co ra -x 

OO) «J 

S Q <u 



2 CO 



a> = 



'» c «J 

o. c a. S: 

C D t O 

5 S 3- 35 

-— Q_ CO 03 

Eg '5 fr , 2 

o, =.C0 co 

3 ~ UJ 



CD 



- 



c Q <2 
— Ill cz 



.32. o m = 
9 a.,y -a 



-i= O 
en ■-= 



CD -^ « 





CD 






a 


■a 






0] 


o 


ro 






o 


£ 


CL 



■• g J) 

g a « = § g. 1 



C CD ^ 03 == 

o co -^ — — 

S e 



co a s 



3» CO 






ro i I 

-8 S I 

> = ° 



Z C. Q cu CL.2 ca 



= £ — 



co .2. .o >2 





a. 





^- : 


o 
E 


n3 

a 


0) 
CO 

n 


u 

e 


£ 


u 

a 


CD 


3 


tn 




m 




■jr. 


75 


a 








■n 


c 












3 






S 


>-. 


ca 



o .2 £ 5 n g ■§ 

|S £ -g I s 8 J 



24 



^xuacaaent ll 
Fage 1 of 2 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 



TO: Anna LaForte, DATE: February 6, 2002 

Budget Analyst 



FROM: Leo Fermin 



SUBJECT: Meeting FAA Security Mandates 



As a result of September 11. 2001, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has put 
into action a plan to enhance safety and security at all U. S. airports. In some instances 
the mandates that have been put in place needed to be met immediately (to resume 
operation of the airport), and in other instances the mandates are to be met by a certain 
date (to continue operation of the airport). As a business That provides service to many in 
the Bay Area, the Airport feels that it is essential to meet these deadlines so operations 
can continue in a safe and secure manner. 

Many of the small capital projects that are scheduled at the Airport that are related to 
runway maintenance and the maintenance of the Airport Operations Area (AOA) are paid 
for initially with commercial paper, which is then reimbursed through the Federal 
Aviation Administration's Airport Improvement Program (AJP) grant awards. This 
allows the Airport to start such projects in a timely manner as well as schedule more 
projects than usual, given the 75 percent reimbursement. 

As noted in previous correspondence with your office, the FAA issued a circular stating 
that it would allow airport operators to reprogram AJP entitlement, funds to help fund the 
cost of the newly adopted safety and security mandates. The Airport's original request for 
A1P 17 included 57,125,000 in grant funds to reimburse the Runway Reconfiguration 
Program for preliminary engineering studies. Given the timelines set by the FAA for 
meeting the new mandates, the importance and ranking of the non Runway items 
requested in other open AJP grants (AJP 13 through AJP 1 7), and the Airport's decision 
to limit the emphasis of the Runway Reconfiguration Program to the development and 
completion of the Environmental Impact Report required by the State, and the 
Environmental Impact Statement required by the federal government, the logical choice 
was to postpone a portion of AJP 17 that was not absolutely critical in producing these 
documents. 



25 

B 2002 17: 1P) 



■rt-Liacnment: 11 
fage Z.ot Z 



Airport management believes that the Runway Program has developed enough scientific 
engineering data to prepare the two documents cited above. Additionally. Airport 
management is committed to obtaining reimbursements for as much of the Runway 
Program expenditures as possible. That is why AIP 17 included a request for preliminary 
engineering funds. In order to be reimbursed for such expenditures now, the Airport must 
rely on PFC revenue or resubmit its request for either entitlement or discretionary funds 
in a subsequent year. The next phases of the preliminary engineering studies have 
therefore been placed on hold until the Airport has a better indication of the amount of 
entitlement funding available to us in the future and the probability of obtaining 
discretionary grant funds from the FAA. 

The remainder of the funds from AIP 17 that will continue to be held would be used to 
reimburse the Airport for expenditures related to the environmental mitigation options 
required by the EIR and ElS documents. However this work has proceeded with funding 
from commercial paper and those commercial paper funds are waiting to be reimbursed 
by the remaining $1,202,977 held on reserve. As the Runway Program progresses, it will 
be necessary to evaluate the efficacy of various environmental impact mitigation options 
and discuss them as part of these documents. Consequently, the Airport does anticipate 
requesting the release of those funds in order to obtain federal reimbursement for 
environmental mitigation analysis that is needed. 

Should you need any further detail or explanation, please feel free to contact me. 



26 
FEB-06-2302 17: n _-., 



Attachment III 

T~ ef 2 




San Francisco International Airport 



January 30, 2002 



Ms. Anna LaFone 
Budget Analyst's Office 
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025 
San Francisco. C A 941 02 

Dear Ms. LaPorte, 



P.0 Box K0«;7 

Ssn FrsnnvaO* '"112S 

1*1 fcSO s/i miixj 

P.«f>';0 B2I.SO03 

ivww.tlysfo.cum 



AIRPORT 

(OMMISSKIN 
CITY AM} fOUNTr 

N fruNrr.co 



OF 



WILLI* I HOlVN. jn. 

HENFO f RFHMSN 
M£5/f'f'(T 

LftdSY MAZIOLA 
Vlll VKtilUiHT 

MICHAfl \. ITKUNSK? 

LINDA J. r«»VTON 



Ai/ifOKT mineral 



Within the next 10 to 12 months, the Airport must meet the new mandates for security 
thai have been imposed on all United States airports to enhance the safely and security of 
passengers and property. The downturn in travel and the restrictions that have been 
imposed by the FAA on persons visiting airports have severely impacted the generation 
of revenue, and thus the financial situation at all airports not just San Francisco. As a 
result, the opportunities to fund the new mandates are limited. 

The Airport has decided to make use of the FAA's recent decision to allow airports to use 
AIP grant monies to provide the capital required to fund some of the new mandates. To 
this end, \\e are requesting the release of 57,125,000 from AIP 17 which was placed on 
reserve by the Finance Committee and subsequently, the full Board of Supervisors. The 
release of these funds would allow us to fund S9.5 million worth of projects in the current 
year. Most importantly, it will allow us to meet deadlines set by the FAA for critical 
items such a blast analyses, window treatments which would protect people should a blast 
occur and the requirement that 100 percent of the baggage passing through the airport he 
screened for explosive devices by December 31, 2002. 

Finally, die Airport has been placed on Credit Watch with negative implications by the 
bond rating agencies. One factor which will add to the Airport's overall financial 
evaluation by the rating agencies is how well the Airport is able to manage its capital 
funds cash flow. Currently, the reserves placed on capital reimbursements has hindered 
the Airport in this area. 

We respectfully request lhal >ou agree to release the funds from AlP 17 and allow the 
Airport to meet the prescribed mandates of the FAA, improve the FAA's level of comfort 
with regard to awarding grants to the Airport and allow us to move forward and 
participate in the FAA's discretionary grant program. Further, because the reserves are 
preventing reimbursements of costs that are being expended, the release of the reserves 
on these reimbursements will help prevent further deterioration in the Airport's capital 
reserves, which will be needed for on-going infrastructure work.. Work on the projects 
approved for reimbursement by the FAA on AIP 17 has begun. These projects arc 



27 



Attachment III 
Page 2 of 2 



Ms. AnnaLaForte 
January 30, 2002 
Page 2 

required by the FAA, have received necessary airline and Airport Commission approvals, 
and until reimbursements are received, are being funded with capital funds previously 
authorized and appropriated by the Board of Supervisors through the Airport's 
Commercial Paper Program, Airport Revenue Bonds and funding in the Annual Budget, 
'ihe placing of the reserves serves no public purpose but only aggravates the Airport's 
financial condition which has been weakened severely by the September 1 1 events and 
the national recession. 

Very truly yours, 




Leo Fermin 

Associate Deputy Airport Director 

Business &. Finance 



28 



ALtacnment iv 



AIRPORT COMMISSION 

SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 



INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 



TO: AnnnLnForte, DATE: February 6, 2002 

Budget Analyst 



FROM: Leo Fermiii J^* 

SUBJECT: Airport Matching Funds for Reprogrammed A1P 17 Grant 

As noted in your report, the matching funds for the reprogrammed portion of AJP 1 7 total 
$2,373,933 The source of such funds, initially, would be commercial paper. That 
commercial paper would eventually roll into the Airport's long-term debt and be paid as 
part of debt service. As such, there is no listing of capital projects that were originally to 
be funded with the Airport revenues in question. No capital projects will be delayed as a 
result of issuing commercial paper to provide the matching funds for the reprogrammed 
ATP 17 "rant. 



29 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Item 4 -File 01-2282 

Note: The Finance Committee at its January 30, 2002 amended page two, line 
three of the subject resolution to correct the par value of the bonds. The 
Finance Committee continued the subject resolution, as amended at its 
January 30, 2002 meeting. 



Department: 



Item: 



Public Utilities Commission (PUC) 

Resolution authorizing the issuance of not to exceed 
$164,000,000 in aggregate principal amount of San 
Francisco Water Revenue Bonds to be issued by the PUC 
for the purpose of water system reliability and seismic 
safety improvements and Safe Drinking Water 
improvements; affirming covenants contained in the 
indenture pursuant to which the Water Revenue Bonds 
are issued; and, authorizing the taking of appropriate 
actions in connection with the issuance of the Water 
Revenue Bonds. 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 

Description: 



Not to exceed $164,000,000 

San Francisco Water Revenue Bonds (Water Revenue 
Bonds) 

On November 4, 1997 San Francisco voters approved (a) 
Proposition A, authorizing the City to issue $157,000,000 
in Water Revenue Bonds to construct reliability and 
seismic safety improvements to the City's water system 
(Systems Reliability Projects); and, (b) Proposition B, 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

30 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



authorizing the City to issue $147,000,000 in Water 
Revenue Bonds to construct safe drinking water 
improvements to the City's water system (Safe Drinking 
Water Projects). The total authorized bond amount for 
the two bond issues is $304,000,000. In May of 1999, the 
Board of Supervisors authorized the issuance of up to 
$140,000,000 in Water Revenue Bonds of the total voter- 
approved bond amount of $304,000,000 for Systems 
Reliability Projects and Safe Drinking Water Projects 
(File 99-0784). According to Ms. Ester Abenojar of the 
PUC, the PUC issued $140,000,000 in Water Revenue 
Bonds in July of 2001 (see Comment No. 1). 

This proposed resolution would authorize the PUC to 
issue the remaining $164,000,000, out of the total voter- 
authorized bond amount of $304,00,000, for the purpose of 
(1) completing the Systems Reliability Projects and the 
Safe Drinking Water Projects; (2) funding debt service 
reserves; and, (3) paying the costs of issuance. Ms. 
Abenojar advises that the System Reliability Projects and 
the Safe Drinking Water Projects would provide the City's 
three water treatment facilities with upgrades to improve 
water quality and upgrade the water distribution system, 
pumping stations and treated water storage facilities for 
the Water Enterprise's water system. The proposed 
resolution would also approve the form and terms of 
documents and official notices related to the bond sale, 
and authorize City officials to take various actions 
necessary to carry out the sale of the bonds. 

The City's authority to issue the proposed $164,000,000 in 
Water Revenue Bonds for the Systems Reliability Projects 
and the Safe Drinking Water Projects comes from Charter 
Section 9.107. According to Ms. Abenojar, bondholders of 
these Water Revenue Bonds are paid from the net 
revenues of the Water Enterprise. Ms. Michelle Sexton of 
the City Attorney's Office advises that these Water 
Revenue Bonds do not require the City's General Fund to 
repay the bonds. Ms. Sexton further advises that when 
the subject Water Revenue Bonds are issued, they will be 
tax-exempt. 

The general provisions of the sale of the Water Revenue 
Bonds would be as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

31 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



» The timing of issuance of the Water Revenue Bonds 
will be determined by market conditions. However, 
the PUC anticipates issuing the Water Revenue Bonds 
in July of 2002. 

e The Water Revenue Bonds will have a 30-year life. 

• The bonds would be issued at an interest rate not to 
exceed eight percent. 

Ms. Abenojar advises that if the bonds were issued at this 
time, the bonds would have an estimated interest rate of 
between 5 percent and 5.5 percent. As shown in 
Attachment I, provided by the PUC, the proposed sale of 
the $164,000,000 in Water Revenue Bonds, assuming an 
interest rate of 5.5 percent, would result in a total debt 
service of approximately $338,522,517 ($164,000,000 in 
principal payments plus $174,522,517 in interest costs) 
over the 30-year life of the bonds. Therefore, the average 
annual debt service on the Water Revenue Bonds, 
assuming a 5.5 percent interest rate is approximately 
$11,284,084 annually to be paid from the Water 
Enterprise's net revenues. 

The following is a breakdown of the estimated sources 
and uses of the $164,000,000 of bond funds: 






Estimated Source's of Funds 


$164,000,000 
$164,000,000 

112,226,519 

50,149,648 

1,120,353 

503,480 

164,000,000 

Commercial Paper (CP) notes to cover Feb. 2002 - July 2002 
)-ctay maturity in case CP interest rates rise (see Comment No. 1). 
jance includes use of a Surety Policy (see Comment No. 6) 


Principal Amount of 2002 Bonds 
Total Sources 

Estimated Uses of Funds 


Deposit to 2002 Series A Project Fund 
Deposit to 2002 Series A Refunding Fund 1 
Cost of Issuance 2 
Underwriter's Discount 3 
Total Uses 

1 Assumes SFPUC will issue $48 million in 
project costs. Interest rate is 1 .75% for 3( 

2 0.683% times $164,000,000. Cost of iss 
J 0.307% times $164,000,000 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

32 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Comments: 1. According to Ms. Abenojar, in May of 1999 the 

Board of Supervisors authorized the PUC to issue up to 
$150,000,000 in commercial paper 1 for the purpose of 
financing and refinancing certain capital improvements to 
the City's water system and for the costs of issuance and 
other related costs (File 98-2026). In October 2000 the 
Board of Supervisors authorized the PUC to expand the 
aggregate principal amount which could be outstanding at 
any one time in its commercial paper program from 
$150,000,000 to $250,000,000, an increase of 
$100,000,000 or approximately 66.7 percent (File 00- 
1789). According to Ms. Abenojar, under the original 
commercial paper resolution (File 98-2026) the PUC was 
authorized to issue commercial paper to fund the costs of 
the water system improvement projects on an interim 
basis until all of the $304,000,000 in voter- authorized 
Water Revenue Bonds are sold. Ms. Abenojar advises that 
in July of 1999 the PUC began issuing commercial paper 
to fund the Systems Reliability Projects and the Safe 
Drinking Water Projects. 

Ms. Abenojar advises that in July of 2001 the PUC issued 
the previously approved Water Revenue Bonds in the 
amount of $140,000,000 (File 99-0784) to refund 
approximately $85,000,000 in commercial paper and the 
remaining approximately $55,000,000 was used to fund 
the costs of the Systems Reliability Projects and Safe 
Drinking Water Projects. Ms. Abenojar advises that the 
PUC will continue to use commercial paper to fund the 
Systems Reliability Projects and the Safe Drinking Water 
Projects until the proposed not to exceed $164,000,000 in 
Water Revenue Bonds are sold, which is estimated to be 
July of 2002, in order to take advantage of current short- 
term commercial paper interest rates. As of January 14, 
2002, 30-day commercial paper interest rates were 1.3 
percent, according to Ms. Abenojar. When bond market 
interest rates are favorable to the City, the PUC will issue 
the $164,000,000 in Water Revenue Bonds and refund 
any outstanding commercial paper. 



1 Commercial paper is issued on an as-needed basis to meet short-term cash demands and can be 
used as a short-term, low-cost source of construction financing prior to the sale of long-term Revenue 
Bonds. The PUC's Commercial Paper program is not backed by General Fund Revenues and does not 
create any exposure to the General Fund. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

33 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



2. Attachment II, provided by the PUC, is a list of the 
existing Systems Reliability Projects and the Safe 
Drinking Water Projects, including project costs. As 
shown in Attachment II, the total estimated cost for the 
Systems Reliability Projects is $156,968,550 (see 
Comment No. 5), and the total estimated cost for the Safe 
Drinking Water Projects is $147,000,000. Therefore, the 
total cost for both the Systems Reliability Projects and 
Safe Drinking Water Projects is $303,968,550. Those 
total costs are funded from the total voter-authorized 
bond amount of $304,000,000, of which $140,000,000 was 
issued by the PUC in July of 2001 and $164,000,000 
would be issued by the PUC in July of 2002 if this 
proposed resolution is approved. 

3. Ms. Abenojar advises that the PUC began the subject 
Systems Reliability Projects and the Safe Drinking Water 
Projects in July of 1999 and the completion date for the 
projects vary, depending on the project. As of December 
31, 2001, the PUC has expended approximately 
$71,178,508 on the Systems Reliability Projects and 
approximately $43,059,742 on the Safe Drinking Water 
Projects for total expenditures of $114,238,250. 
Attachment III, provided by the PUC, contains actual 
expenditures, by project, to date, as well as estimated 
project completion dates. 

4. According to Ms. Abenojar, the amount appropriated 
for the Systems Reliability Projects and the Safe Drinking 
Water Projects is as follows: FY 1999-2000, $126,099,850; 
FY 2000-2001, $100,232,700; and, FY 2001-2002, 
$77,636,000, for a total appropriation of $303,968,550. 
The remaining revenue bond fund proceeds in the amount 
of $31,450 ($304,000,000 less $303,968,550) will be 
included in the Water Department's FY 2002-2003 budget 
request, according to Mr. Carlos Jacobo of the PUC. Mr. 
Jacobo advises that the prior appropriation of 
$303,968,550 for the Systems Reliability Projects and the 
Safe Drinking Water Projects was from commercial -paper 
proceeds previously approved by the Board of Supervisors, 
which are reimbursed when the voter-approved Water 
Revenue Bonds are sold. As noted above, as of December 
31, 2001, approximately $114,238,250 of the previously 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

34 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



authorized $140,000,000 Water Revenue Bond proceeds 
has been expended. 

5. According to Ms. Abenojar, the total estimated cost of 
the Systems Reliability Projects is $156,968,550, which is 
331,450 less than the voter-approved bond amount of 
$157,000,000 ($157,000,000 less total project costs of 
$156,968,550). Ms. Abenojar advises that the total 
estimated cost of the Safe Dri nk ing Water Projects is 
$147,000,000. Ms. Abenojar advises that the $31,450 
would be allocated to the costs of the Water Revenue 
Bond issuance, which is estimated to be $1,120,353, and 
any unspent revenue bond funds and related interest 
earnings would be allocated to capital improvement 
projects consistent with the purposes approved by the San 
Francisco voters in 1997. 

6. Ms. Abenojar advises that the Debt Service Reserve 
Fund is estimated to be approximately $5,642,042, or half 
of the maximum annual debt service payment of 
approximately $11,284,084. Typically, a Debt Service 
Reserve Fund is funded from the bond proceeds. 
However, Ms. Abenojar advises that, if it is economical, 
the PUC may fund the Debt Service Reserve Fund by 
obtaining a Surety Policy for the proposed Water Revenue 
Bonds. A Surety Policy is similar to an insurance policy 
and is used in lieu of a Debt Service Reserve Fund. The 
Surety Policy amount would be equal to the Debt Service 
Reserve Fund requirement of an estimated $5,642,042. A 
Surety Policy on the Water Revenue Bonds would cost 
approximately 1.68 percent of the amount of the Debt 
Service Reserve Fund amount of $5,642,042, or $94,786, 
which would be funded from the bond proceeds. Ms. 
Abenojar advises that the estimated sources and uses of 
the $164,000,000 of bond funds, provided in the table 
above, assumes that the PUC would obtain a Surety 
Policy and such costs are included in the estimated cost of 
issuance of $1,120,353. However, according to Ms. 
Abenojar, as of the writing of this report, the PUC has not 
yet determined whether a cash Debt Service Reserve 
Fund will be utilized or whether a Surety Policy will be 
obtained and, as of the writing of this report, she is 
uncertain as to the precise amount of savings which 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 
35 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

would result by using a Surety Policy instead of a Debt 
Service Reserve Fund. However, such savings, if realized, 
would be used for capital improvement projects. 

7. This subject resolution also authorizes taking future 
actions in connection with the Water Revenue Bonds, 
such as obtaining a bond rating for the Water Revenue 
Bonds, obtaining bond insurance and obtaining a Surety 
Policy if such a policy is in the best interest of the City. 

8. At its January 30, 2002 meeting, the Finance 
Committee requested the PUC to provide the Committee 
with an appropriation history for the Proposition A 
(Systems Reliability Projects) and Proposition B (Safe 
Drinking Water Projects) Water Revenue Bonds and the 
associated funding sources, including commercial paper, 
and how projects funded by Proposition A and B funds 
relate to the proposed PUC Capital Improvement 
Program ("CIP"). Attachment IV is a memo from Mr. 
Kingsley Okereke of the PUC, which includes a 
spreadsheet with the appropriation history for the 
Proposition A and B Water Revenue Bonds from FY 1999- 
2000 through FY 2001-2002 and the associated funding 
sources. As shown in Attachment IV, the appropriation 
and related funding sources for the Proposition A and B 
projects are as follows: 

Proposition A Proposition B Totals Funding Sources 

FY 1999-2000 $67,266,700 $58,833,150 $126,099,850 Bonds 

FY 2000-2001 64,796,700 35,436,000 100,232,700 Commercial Paper 

FY 2001-2002 24.905.150 52.730.850 77.636.000 Commercial Paper 

$156,968,550 $147,000,000 $303,968,550 

In Attachment IV Mr. Okereke advises that while the 
Annual Appropriation Ordinance for FY 1999-2000 
indicated that the ultimate funding source for Proposition 
A and B projects was Water Revenue Bonds, the PUC 
actually used commercial paper to initially fund these 
projects. Mr. Okereke states that in May of 1999, the 
Board of Supervisors authorized the PUC to use 
commercial paper to fund these projects for an interim 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

36 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 13, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Recommendation: 



period in-lieu of the Water Revenue Bonds (File 98-2026). 
As noted above, the PUC will continue to use commercial 
paper to fund these projects until the PUC issues the 
subject $164,000,000 in Water Revenue Bonds. 

Approve the proposed resolution. 



Harvey M. Rose 



cc: Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Daly 
Supervisor Maxwell 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 
Ted Lakey 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

37 



Acuacnment 1 



G 
CO 

w 


Q 
CO 


a 

co 


a 
CO 

o 


SO 

o 
ro 

CD 


ro 

a 

NO 
CD 


M 

a 

ro 


ro 

c 
\c 
03 


H 
















£ 


a 


ro 

a 


u 

a 


CO 

to 


Ox 
CD 


01 

as 


CO 

Ox 




o 
01 


u 

o>. 


ox 
ox 
u 


On 

01 

ro 


CO 

a 


to 

09 

CD 


N3 
^1 




CD 


o 

M 
09 


o 

C75 


ox 

o 

CD 


M 
Ox 

'CD 


CO 
CD 

u 


a 




u 


01 

93 


S9 


a 

C3 


CO 

U 


on 


CD 



MMN5MN3POMror>OMIvjfON3MrOISjroN3MMf>OMrvJMr>0 

aooaooooooooooooooooooooo 
-»_k^_i_»._i_i_i._»0O00O0 

ONO)«1AUM-»010COSOIU1A 

SSOOIOOO-i^MMUUUAAAOUIUIUIQ 
-i CS _U1 - N M a U O M O) O A _o -> Ul ffl -* i Ol CO -i 

"ox "ox "o "co "ro 03 "ro "ro "o "on to "to "cd "cn to *ro "ox "co "-x "as "co Vj 

MACl^OlS-ifflOllOOfflA-'OiaiOOlONAU 



ro 


M 


C9 




n 


O 


CO 


M 



to to m ai m 

Vi -x Kj "co o os co to "to 

-J. cn 



-ito^tbu&ucss 

"os "cn "o "os "to "--J CO CO "to 



_ ro o ->• o o 

AaNOOfflJW^J>SOOUUesk-»AulMOOO 

^biwbui'-'AbifobtouffiiobWbiobibiuibbb 

MU-»C3fllMtOlOMNO-'tDNNJOOMCOC»NltOOO 



A 




_» 


-X 


ro 


S3 


CO 


CO 


CO 


Ox 


Ox 


cn 


Ol 


cn 


Ol 


<r-> 


cn 


CT> 


C7> 


•si 


^J 


~-l 


-o. 


-O, 


co 


CD 


OS 


CD 


CD 


N3 


CD 
CD 


Ox 

01 


cn 
■si 

Ox 


■si 

U1 


09 
Ol 

O 


a 
a 


01 

ro 

en 


CO 
CO 


CO 

Ox 


en 
"J 

CD 


o 

M 


CO 
Ox 

CD 


on 

co 


CO 

cn 


ro 
ro 

CO 


Ox 
CO 
CO 


■si 

Ox 

ro 


CO 
co 


ro 
a 

CO 


OX 

cn 


CM 
CD 


CO 

o 
co 


CO 

co 
a 


cn 
ro 


CO 

ro 
cn 


Ox 

co 


ccn 
ro 
cn 


-J 

cn 

Ox 


CT 

s 


ro 


'CD 
-J 


Ox 

o 

CO 


CO 

CD 


N 

Ox 
CO 


CO 
Ox 

CO 


CO 
CD 

o 


CO 
CD 
-si 


-J 

O 
CO 


O 

CO 

cn 


Ox 
M 
-s| 


co 
en 

Ox 


ro 

CD 
CO 


cn 


cn 
cn 

CO 


a 
-J 

cn 


CD 
Ox 

CO 


cn 

CO 

o 


to 

CO 
01 


-s| 

a 


CO 

CD 


Ox 

ro 

Ox 


cn 

cn 

CD 


ro 

cn 

CD 


o 
cn 


ro 

CD 
O 


cn 

a 

fO 


a 




~4 

CD 


0* 
CD 


CD 

09 


Ox 
Ox 


cn 

o 


a 

-si 


ro 

CD 


cn 

CD 


Ol 

c 


CO 


Ox 


CO 

M 


CO 

cn 


cn 

CO 


CD 


ro 

CO 


cn 
O 


cn 

CO 


CJ1 

o 


U1 

CO 


cn 
ro 


CD 


ro 

CO 


a 


CO 


CO 

on 


CO 


CO 

ro 



os to 

CD O 

to ro 



CO 

03 

cn 


ro 


M 


M 


ro 


M 


(O 


ro 


M 


M 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


M 


M 


ro 


ro 


M 


M 


ro 


ro 


ro 


ro 


M 


ro 


ro 


ro 


on 










no 




ro 


ra 


ID 


CD 


no 


CO 


ra 


ra 


ra 


ra 


09 


m 


ccn 


CO 


00 


CD 


ra 


m 


ra 


no 


CO 


CD 


rn 


ro 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


OX 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 


Ox 




a 


a 


cn 


o 


o 


a 


cn 


a 


cn 


a 


C5 


ra 


cn 


cn 


o 


a 


a 


m 


O 


O 


o 


<-> 


m 


cn 


cn 


O 


cn 


a 


O 


CT 




ro 


m 


ro 


ro 


ra 


09 


03 


ra 


ro 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


CD 


ra 


CD 


CD 


CD 


ra 


ceo 


CD 


ro 


ro 


ra 


ra 


CO 


cn 


CD 


ID 


CD 


~J 


U 


to 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


to 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


to 


to 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


ro 

IO 


CO 


co 


CO 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


co 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


to 


to 


CO 


co 


to 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 


CO 



on -k cn _x 
co co o o 
oi os to os 



on cn _cn cn ai pi cn *. ox _ox ox w to to co co ro m ro r-o ro ro 

"ro *-x * 



os OS _-vl _ 

"cn "-x Vi "co "to "cn "ro "to "on "co "o 

CJascncncnocncorococn 



co co -vi ro to cn -x cn cn _ro 
"co '-o. "o "cn "co "p "cn ro "as "cn "cn 



■si oi co o ca cn ox 

to ox o co cn an -vi 

-x — x ox o -vi cn Ox 

"o "ro "*. "o "co *-~j "on cn co o os 



cn cn 
cn -* 
os to 



p ox ro o _x 
o-xoxooxroosenco 

o co cn ox cn 



cnoxcorocnto^icoto 



O 03 — 



cntocncn-siro-x-xasco 



cn ox ro ox co ro o 



-k ro o 

p ox cn cn 

b -x bi cn 

o co co ro 



ox ro, to o 

O 0x co ^J 

co oo co ^i 



CD 


CO 


CO 


o 
ro 


o 

ra 


CO 


ra 


ro 
ro 


ro 

cn 


CO 

o 


CO 
Ox 


CO 

CD 


Ox 


Ox 

on 


a 
cn 
cn 


CO 

en 


ro 
cn 
ro 


co 


ro 
a 


ro 

o> 

Ox 


a 
on 
on 


cn 

CO 


CO 

o 


CO 

CD 


CO 
Ox 

CO 


cn 

0x 


CO 
CD 
CO 


ro 

CD 
CO 


ro 
o 


ra 
cn 

CO 


o 

CD 


CD 

co 


CO 

CO 


to 
o 
on 


CO 
Ox 


cn 

Ox 


cn 

Ox 
•^1 


CO 

o 


CD 


ra 
co 

CO 


cn 

Ox 
CO 


a 

cn 
ra 


CO 


CO 
CD 


cn 
cn 


ISJ 


Ox 

to 


on 
co 


ro 
ro 


cn 
ro 


CO 

o 


Co 


o 

to 


CO 
^1 


o 
ro 


-J 
o 



-x to o co cn to 
ro cn o to ro -x 

oxcncncnoncncn-c!. cd 

CO-xOxcncO-xOx-CJ 3 

"ox "co "-x "as "co Vi "o ~ cu 

OOIONMOO^ 3 - 

o.uco-~jst)ioE.i 
"co "co Vi "co "co "co "o co 

-^ Ox Ox NS O -i O 

ox -x ox cn -m cn o 



m o > H 5- cn 

cn CD O CD — o 

=•• CT 3 q 5 =3 

3 -" c 3 s q. 

u co 5L « > 

2 5 -a "3 



"0 ^ 

o 2 



OO — CO « 

co to 'co ° 
O on -x " on 



3S 



Prop A and B Project List and Appropiations 



Attachment II 



FAMIS 
Project 

1997 A Water Revenue Bond Projects 



Title 



TOTAL 



CUW125 
CUW126 
CUW127 
CUW131 
CUW135 
CUW165 
CUW183 
CUW191 
CUW198 
CUW202 
CUW226 
CUW602 
CUW603 
CUW624 
CUW623 
CUW651 
CUW653 
CUW654 
CUW657 
CUW663 
CUW666 
CUW672 
CUW860 
CUW870 

CUW797 



Bay Division Pipeline - Seismic Upgrade at Hayward Fauit 

Pulgas Valve Lot 

SCADA System 

SF Water Department - Intertie 

New Line & By Pass Valves 

Equipment Anchorage 

Palo Aito Redundant Connect 

Fire/Security Upgrades 

Stone Dam Rehabilitation 

Replace Prestressed Pipe (Crystal Springs Bypass) 

Bay Division Pipeline Recoating (at Newark) 

New Water Services/Meters 

Relocate/Realign Services 

Reservoir Roof Seismic Upgrade (University Mound rehabilitation) 

S.F. Reservoir/ Tank Rehabilitation 

Pump Station Upgrades 

Stand by Generators 

Seismic Upgrade North Basin (all Sunset Reservoir rehabilitation) 

Balboa/Francisco (Balboa Reservoir) 

Key Motorized Valves 

Clarendon Pump Station 

Sutro Reservoir 

Relocate/Realign Mains 

Water Main Replacement 

Commercial Paper - Admin/Interest Expense 
Bond Finacing Costs (including Reserve Fund) 

Total 



7,779,150 

426,700 

18,039,000 

8,368,300 

3,443,000 

3,039,500 

500,000 

2,572,000 

242,000 

10,732,500 

500,000 

5,944,250 

578,800 

16,000,000 

12,500,000 

7,600,000 

2,750,000 

6,700,000 

300,000 

2,100,000 

4,000,000 

5,000,000 

580,500 

28,000,000 

5,117,700 

4,155,150 

156,968,550 



FAMIS 
Project 



Title 



1997 B Water Revenue Bond Projects 

CUW134 Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant Fast Tracks 2,068,550 

CUW143 HetchHetchy Water Treatment (chloramination) 38,383,000 

CUW186 Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant Improvement Project 59,481 ,000 

CUW206 Tesla Portal/Thomas Shaft 5,253,600 

CUW218 Harry Tracy Improvements 10,000,000 

CUW222 Water Quality Compliance Improvements 1,209,000 

CUW223 Distribution System Water Quality Improvement 850,000 

CUW230 Millbrae Lab Improvements 400,000 

CUW234 Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant Short Term Improvement (filter to waste) 2,420,000 

CUW236 Water Quality Monitoring (Tesla) 350,000 

CUW632 Sutro Reservoir - Inlet/Outlet 17,167,000 

CUW668 Other Reservoirs • Inlet/Outlet ' 5,000,000 



CUW797 Commercial Paper - Admin/Interest Expense 

Bond Financing Costs (including Reserve fund) 

Total 



625,000 
3,792,850 

147,000,000 



39 



Source: Public Utilities Commission 



ft L LCIU1 



o o o o 



= ci a s 



a q 5 5a 



a a p o 

Soil 



^oOoooooqoo 
5<Q<^Q<QO< l f 



© 3 T TT 



CO (O W CM CI O 



<- a -~ 



id a fl n 



U3 o_ p_ lO_ CO 

ffl N r- lO 



to O CO 

m to i- 
cm* co" o" 



to en <- *- 



03 t- r- i- 



co *t r- to cm t- 



t o 

co" eo" 
eo .n 



eo a 

eo" BO 

t- CM 



•<r o ^r co m 



9. t °. 

i*- o 



O fT 
lO_ tO 

rv.' co" 

cO CO 
CD *-_ 

to* 



*- CM O 0> 



o> •** c> o r- co 

[M O) a) a f N 
O) CO CO CO CO 



W S CB S 



OJ CO *- T 



I- r- CD 



t- (O CO CM 



to s a in s 

to o to cm en 

CO" CO" N-* 0» CO* 

t- •>- CN 



Q. J3 

5 2 



Q- 0. 

< m 



O O — 

a. c «u 

2 2 o 

Q. Q_ 1- 



CD « 
in -* 



£ 


OB 






v 






















u 


s 


2 




r. 


.a 








DC 

c 




8 
1 


3 
1 




ffl 

o 


a 



r n u> •■= < 



3 e I 0. •§ S 

I 2. a -s - I 

> w £ ■ 

Cl < > 



i 8 



;=so»:> 



S "5 ° 

W « Z 111 Q. 

*-- — 10 m r> *- 



MBOZEEIliLIOIOO^UUUO! 



?3 



3 3 3 3 3 3 

3 O D O Z> 13 

o o u o o u 



3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 333 

DDDDDDDDDDDDDDO ODD 
UUUOUUOUUOO'JUUO OUU 



'if 



Q. O 

o £ 
a. i/5 



a - " J2 I £S a 
§ | 5 i J a| g 

i3||ii:| 

£f*J*fl | 

£• S f J 2-S2 s 



333333333333 

DDDDDD3DDDDD 
UOOOUUUOOOUO 



££ 



< < o "5 

I I "1 1 

:! I 1 | 

0^5 

S- S- °> 2 

CL Q. -O i 



40 



FPU, 




San Francisco 
( ublic Utilities Commission 



Attachment IV 
Page 1 of 3 




MEMORANDUM 



Date: February 4, 2002 

to: honorable aaron peskin, chairman, finance committee 

Honorable Chris Daly 
honorable sophie maxwell 
harvey rose, board of supervisors budget analyst 

cc: patricia martel, general manager, sfpuc 

bill berry, agm for finance & administration, sfpuc 

Gloria Young, Clerk of the board 

From: Kingsley Okereke, Director of finance, SFPUC 

Subject: Finance Committee Questions Regarding Proposition A&B Bonds 



This memorandum is intended to respond to Committee questions regarding the history of 
appropriations and the associated funding sources for the 1997 Proposition A&B projects, 
and how projects funded by Proposition A&B funds relate to the proposed SFPUC Capital 
Improvement Program ("CIP"). 



Proposition A&B Appropriation History 

Attached to this memorandum is a detailed spreadsheet (Schedule A) providing a historical 
view of all appropriations relating to the 1997 Proposition A&B projects. Additionally, the 
Final Consolidated Budget and Annual Appropriation cover page and the pages relevant to 
the 1997 Proposition A&B projects are attached for the particular fiscal year as references. 

The following chronology describes the SFPUC's appropriations and financing actions with 
respect to the Proposition A&B Bonds: 

■ May 1999: The Board of Supervisors ("Board") authorized $150 million Commercial 
Paper program and $140 million Water Revenue Bonds. The SFPUC indicated it would 
initially use Commercial Paper ("CP") to fund projects authorized by Proposition A & 
B, but that the Bonds would be issued to take out CP before the $150 million 
authorized amount was reached. This permitted the SFPUC to issue CP as needed to 
pay expenditures, providing flexibility and lower interest rates. 

■ FY 1999-2000: The FY 2000 Budget authorized by the Board appropriated 
approximately $126 million for Proposition A&B projects ($67 million and $59 million 
for A and B projects, respectively). While the Ordinances indicated revenue bonds 
would be the ultimate funding source for these projects, as indicated above, the 
SFPUC used CP to fund initial expenditures. 

• FY2000-2001: The FY 2001 budget approved by the Board appropriated 
approximately $100 million for Proposition A&B funded projects ($65 million and $35 
million for A and B projects, respectively). Consistent with the funding plan outlined 
above, Ordinance 180-00 indicated that funding for the projects would come from 



U6/2X12 i:M f 



*i\TTMP\-MECX>OJ*.OOC 



41 



al. Laciiineni- xv 
Page 2 of 3 

Finance Committee Questions 

Regarding Proposition A&3 Bonds - 2 - FEBRUARY 6, 2002 

the CP program. Total appropriations for A&B Projects now totaled approximately 
$226 million. To provide additional funding for these projects, the SFPUC requested, 
and the Board approved, an expansion of the CP Program from $150 million to $250 
million. This allowed SFPUC to continue funding the approved projects with CP 
proceeds until such time as Bonds were issued. For reference, resolutions authorizing 
and expanding the CP program are attached to this memorandum. 

o FY2001-2002: Approximately $78 million was appropriated for additional A&B 
projects in the FY 2002 budget approved by the Board ($25 million and $53 million 
for A and B projects, respectively). Attached Ordinance 170-01 provided that funding 
for the project appropriations for the current fiscal year would be from the CP 
program. With approval of this budget, the Board has appropriated virtually all of the 
$304 million intended to be supported by Proposition A&B Bonds. Except for projects 
funded by revenue, no additional projects can be undertaken without approval of 
additional revenue bonds. 

• July 2001: The SFPUC sold $140 million of Proposition A&B Water Revenue Bonds. 
About $85 million of the proceeds were used to refund outstanding CP notes. The 
remaining $55 million was used toward payment of the bond related issuance costs, 
and to continue funding the proposition A&B projects. 

It should be noted that the CP and the Revenue Bonds share the same legal authorization — 
Proposition A&B. The total outstanding obligation of Bonds and CP combined cannot exceed 
the voter authorized bond limit of $304 million. $140 million of Proposition A&B Revenue 
Bonds have been issued. While there are no CP notes currently outstanding, the CP program 
continues to provide funding support for the approximately $164 million in Proposition A&B 
projects beyond the $140 million in Bonds that have been issued. Based on current pace of 
work and expenditures on the projects in progress, the SFPUC expects to begin issuing 
additional CP notes beginning in March or April 2002. 

The SFPUC is requesting the Board authorization to issue the remaining $164 million of 
voter-approved Proposition A&B Bonds. When issued, the proceeds of this bond issue, after 
payment of issuance costs, will be used first to retire all CP then-outstanding, and the 
remainder applied toward the approved proposition A&B projects. 

Relationship Of Proposition A&B Projects to Proposed SFPUC CIP 

There are significant connections between the projects being undertaken pursuant to 
Proposition A&B and the proposed CIP. Proposition A&B bonding capacity was approved by 
the San Francisco voters for projects in two areas — Proposition A authorized bonding to 
fund reliability and seismic safety improvements projects, while Proposition B provided 
funding for water quality improvement projects. While the voters approved $304 million in 
bond funding, the actual need for capital project spending for the Water Enterprise was 
approximately $2.4 billion at that time. 

The proposed CIP identifies additional projects the SFPUC proposes to construct during the 
next ten year period. While a small portion of the cost estimates contained in the proposed 
CIP are intended to complete projects whose planning or design has been initiated with A&B 
funds, they largely consists of projects which the SFPUC believes are of critical importance, 
but for which funds are not currently available. Many of these projects were included in the 
SFPUC's planning prior to the voter authorization of Propositions A&B, but there are also 
newly identified projects intended to reduce risk, increase system reliability or meet other 

important needs. ! 

I 
Please contact Kingsley Okereke at 415-487-5256 or e-mail kokereke(5)puc.sf.ca.us if you 
have any question. ! 

| 
a 
42 



Attachment IV 
^age 3 oi 3 



• s s ? 



3 Q 2 S 

51 3 w w n £ sttos^otfBCji 30S3 IDfl^aa 5 'ji "a 3 a a « 

&Ell.fi a I ?l j s j i ? 2. ills ■« ~ 5"^ o = isi'iis^ 



a. = <s£ 




ft ft ft r\ n n ft n o ft ft ft ft ft n n n n ft ft ftftftftt 



\ ft ft ft ft ft ft ft o 



i s 



! 2 






Km 5 1 



3 § I s i 



3d 



i'3 



3 = 

!° 

> z 

IB s 



43 




City and County of San Francisco 

Meeting Minutes 

Finance Committee 

Members: Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly 



City Hall 

1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

94102-4689 



Clerk: Gail Johnson 



Wednesday, February 20, 2002 



12:30 PM 
Regular Meeting 



City Hall, Room 263 



Members Present: Aaron Peskin, Chris Daly, Sophie Maxwell. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 12:35 p.m. 

020140 [Reserved Funds, Public Library] 

Hearing to request release of reserved funds, Public Library (File 010551, Ordinance No. 76-01), in the amount 

of $50,000 to fund the contract for signage design at the Main Library. (Public Library) 

2/5/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Susan Hildreth, City Librarian. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $50,000 approved. 

APPROVED AND FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Maxwell 

Absent: 1 - Daly 



020189 [Supplemental Appropriation, Department of Public Works) 
Supervisor Ammiano 

Ordinance reappropriating $500,000 from the Third Street Light Rail Project and $2,295,000 from the Taraval 
Street Resurfacing Project for a total of $2,795,000 to various street resurfacing projects in Districts 4 and 7, 
$1,295,000, and the Rivera/Santiago Street resurfacing project, $1,500,000, for the Department of Public 
Works for fiscal year 2001-02. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/4/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Theresa Burke, Department of Public Works. 

AMENDED, AN AMENDMENT OF THE WHOLE BEARING NEW TITLE. 

Ordinance reappropriating $500,000 from the Third Street Light Rail Street Resurfacing Project to Various 

Street Treatment Projects in Districts 4 and 7 to be spent by the end of fiscal year 2001-02 and reappropriating 

$2,295,000 from the Taraval Street Resurfacing Project to Various Street Resurfacing Projects to be identified 

in consultation with the San Francisco County Transportation Authority to be spent by the end of fiscal year 

2002-03 for a total of $2,795,000 for the Department of Public Works. 

(Fiscal impact.) 

RECOMMENDED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



City and County of San Franci 



Printed at 4.? I PM on 3/3 HJ 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes February 20, 2002 



ADJOURNMENT 



The meeting adjourned at J .05 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 4:51 PM on 3/3/04 



[Budget Analyst Report] 

Susan Horn 

Main Library-Govt. Doc. Section 




\^>j&m!ljs) OF S^N FRANCISCO 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

1390 Market Street, Suite 1025, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 554-7642 

FAX (415) 252-0461 



February 14, 2002 



TO: ^Finance Committee 

FROM: ^Budget Analyst 

SUBJECT: .February 20, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 1 - File 02-0140 

Department: 

Item: 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 
Description: 



DOCUMENTS DEPT. 

FEB 2 2002 

SAN FRANCISCO 
PUBLIC LIBRARY 



San Francisco Public Library (SFPL) 

Hearing to consider the release of reserved funds for the 
San Francisco Public Library in the amount of $50,000 for 
the Signage Design Project at the Main Library. 

$50,000 

Library Improvement Bond Funds 1 

The proposed request from the Public Library is to release 
$50,000 previously reserved by the Board of Supervisors 
for the Signage Design Project at the Main Library. The 
funds for this project, totaling $50,000, were placed on 
reserve by the Finance Committee at its meeting of April 
25, 2001, pending selection of a consultant and 
submission of budget details, including hours and hourly 
rates (File 01-0551). 



1 The Library Improvement Bond Fund monies are from the voter-approved 1988 Library Improvement Bond 
for $109,527,000. 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 20, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



The subject Signage Design Project is a Main Library 
building improvement project recommended in the Post 
Occupancy Evaluation (POE) report (see Comment No. 1) 
of the Main Library. The POE found that the signage at 
the Main Library was inadequate, which inhibits the 
public's access to materials and services and increases the 
public's reliance on the staff for basic directions to the 
materials and services available at the Main Library. The 
POE recommended that a signage consultant be hired to 
develop a signage system that would mitigate existing 
signage problems. 

According to Mr. George Nichols from the Public Library, 
the Public Library and the Bureau of Architecture issued 
a Request for Proposals (RFP) on October 23, 2001 for the 
subject Signage Design Project and selected Kate Keating 
Associates on January 18, 2002 to design the Main 
Library's signage system (see Comment No. 2). In 
Attachment I, provided by the Public Library, Mr. Nichols 
reports that the signage design consultant would design 
the signage system only and a separate competitive bid 
would be held to select the vendor to manufacture and 
install the signs (see Comment No. 4). Mr. Nichols 
advises that the signage design consultant would be 
responsible for (a) Programming and Schematic Design, 
which evaluates existing signage, reviews current 
Americans with Disabilities (ADA) requirements and 
presents schematic signage design options to the Public 
Library; (b) Design Development, which develops the 
signage schematic design option chosen by the Public 
Library; (c) Construction Documents, which prepares 
construction documents for the selected signage design 
option, including construction cost estimates; and, (d) 
Guidelines and Budgeting, which establishes procedures 
for in-house sign maintenance and develops budget 
estimates for annual maintenance costs. According to 
Mr. Nichols, the Signage Design Project, which is 
estimated to cost a total of $50,000, will be managed by 
the Department of Public Works. 

Budget: The summary budget for the requested release of reserved 

funds for the Signage Design Project is as follows: 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

2 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 20, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Programming and Schematic Design $20,745 

Design Development 9,500 

Construction Documents 14,000 

Guidelines and Budgeting 3,740 

Miscellaneous Reimbursibles 2.015 

Total $50,000 

Attachment II, provided by the Public Library, contains 
budget details, including hours and hourly rates of the 
consultant, Kate Keating Associates, for the Signage 
Design Project. 

Comments: 1. In 1999 the Public Library retained Ripley and 

Associates at a cost of $255,773 to conduct an 
independent Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) of the 
Main Library to assess the Main Library's functionality. 
According to Mr. Nichols, the consultant had one architect 
and two library consultants on its team. Mr. Nichols 
states that the POE report, based on the consultant 
team's findings, was issued in January of 2000, outlining 
suggestions for improvements to the Main Library 
facilities which would cost an estimated $28,000,000, 
including $10,300,000 for the renovation and use of 
Brooks Hall 2 . 

2. Attachment I, lists the 13 respondents to the RFP and 
their bid amounts. According to Mr. Nichols, the following 
persons were on the selection panel: Kathy Lawhun, Chief 
of the Main Library; Marcia Schnieder, Public Affairs 
Director for the Public Library; and, Sheila Grant, 
Graphic Artist, Sacramento Public Library. Mr. Nichols 
advises that all respondents' written proposals were 
scored by the panelists and the top five scoring vendors 
were selected for an oral interview and presentation. Mr. 
Nichols further advises that Kate Keating Associates was 
selected based on the scoring of its written proposal, oral 
interview and the application of WBE/MBE/LBE points. 
Of the top five vendors, the bid amounts ranged from a 
low of $46,100 to a high of $50,000. Kate Keating 



- Brooks Hall is an underground facility connected to the BUI Graham Auditorium. Mr. Nichols states that the 
Public Library currently uses a portion of Brooks Hall for a variety of purposes including remote storage of 
governmant documents, back-issues of hard bound periodicals. City Archives, gift collections pending review 
and processing, the Public Library's book redistribution program and storage for furniture, fixtures, and 
equipment. 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 
BUDGET ANALYST 

3 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 20, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Associates bid $48,000 and the Public Library budgeted 
$2,000 for miscellaneous expenses. 

3. As shown in Attachment II, the hourly rates charged by 
Kate Keating Associates ranges from a low of $70 per 
hour to a high of $125 per hour. Mr. Nichols further 
advises that it would take approximately six months to 
complete the Signage Design Project. 

4. Mr. Nichols advises that the costs for the 
manufacturing and installation of the signage system for 
the Main Library is estimated to be $350,000, and the 
funds for the manufacturing and installation of the 
signage system were included in the Public Library's FY 
2001-2002 budget. As previously noted, a separate 
competitive bid process would be conducted to select the 
vendor to manufacture and install the signs. 

Recommendation: Release the requested $50,000 in reserved funds. 



BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 

BUDGET ANALYST 

4 



Attachment I 
Page 1 of 3 




February 4, 2002 

San Francisco Public Library 

100 Larkin Street. San Francisco. CA 94102 



TO: Maureen Singleton, Budget Analyst 
Budget Analyst's Office ^ 

/' Xj 

FR: George Nichols, Finance Director J i 

i /?' 

RE: RELEASE OF FINANCE COMMITTEE RESERVE FUNDS (SIGNAGE) 



As requested the following information is provided. Please call me at 557-4248 if you have additional 
questions. 

1 1 RESPONDENTS TO THE RFP AND VENDOR SELECTED 

a) There were 13 respondents to the RFP. The respondents were Biesek Design, Dsign Art, Design 
Pacifica International, Ellipsis, Englund Designworks, General Graphics Exhibits, Ilium, Kate 
Keating Associates, McCracken & McCracken, Mitchell Design, Priority Architectural Graphics, 
Square Peg Design, and Wieber Nelson Design. 

b) After initial review and ranking, five finalists were selected for an oral interview. The five 
finalists were Beisek, Ellipsis, Englund, Kate Keating, and Square Peg. 

c) The winning proposal was submitted by: Kate Keating Associates 

2) NAMES AND TITLES OF SELECTION COMMITTEE MEMBERS: 

a) Kathy Lawhun, Chief of Main, San Francisco Public Library 

b) Marcia Schneider, Public Affairs Director, San Francisco Public Library 

c) Sheila Grant, Graphic Artist, Sacramento Public Library 

3) BID AMOUNTS AND RANKING INFORMATION: Vendor selection was made in two phases. All 
respondents were first scored based on their written proposals. The five highest scoring vendors were 
then selected for an oral interview and presentation that was scored separately. 

a) Written scores were based on: 

i) Specified bid amount (RFP specified a S50.000 budget). 

ii) Consultant's Qualifications (i.e., relevant experience in designing signage systems for libraries 

and/or complex buildings), 
iii) Agency and professional staff background (i.e., in-house or collaboration capability to fabricate 

or install signs, background and experience of personnel that will be assigned to the project); 
iv) Scope of work/contractor response (i.e., clarity and conciseness of proposal, extent proposal 

addressed all focus area topics, timeline for completion and estimated hours for each 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 3 



objective, ability to provide oral and written reports of findings, and degree to which feedback 
or input from Library staff is considered), 
v) Reference Check (i.e., jobs completed on time and on budget, effectiveness of personnel 
assigned to the project, overall satisfaction with effort). 

b) Oral interview scores were based on: 



i) 



Individual and group experience in a library setting; knowledge of libraries and library 

operations; enthusiasm for the project; quality of presentation. 

Philosophy of way finding and principles considered in designing signage systems (i.e., 

Duilding functionality, placement, symbols vs. words, etc.). 

Attitude towards and capacity to involve library staff in the project. 

Ability to summarize their project proposal including project phases and concepts underlining 

their particular approach to the project. 

Ability to articulate the major challenges they see in designing a signage system for the SFPL. 



Written scores and bid amounts for all respondents are listed below. Vendors selected for the oral 
interview and their oral scores are italicized. The "Adj. Oral Score" is the "Oral Score" after 
application of the 1 0% discount for WBE/MBE/LBE. Based on the scoring of the oral interview and 
the application of WBE/MBE/LBE discount points, the winning vendor is Kate Keating Associates. 





Written 






Adj. Oral Score 


VENDOR 


Score 


Bid Amount 


Oral Score 


(WBE/MBE/LBE) 


Biesek Design 


275 


$47,600 


276 


276 


Ellipsis 


225 


$50,000 


256 


256 


Englund Designworks 


232 


$46,100 


232 


232 


Kate Keating Associates 


239 


$48,000 


257 


282.7 


Square Peg Design 


237 


$50,000 


252 


252 


DSign Art 


190 


$39,500 


N/A 


N/A 


Design Pacific International 


211 


$49,500 


N/A 


N/A 


General Graphics Exhibits 


183 


$50,000 


N/A 


N/A 


lllium 


206 


$50,000 


N/A 


N/A 


McCracken & McCracken 


197 


$42,900 


N/A 


N/A 


Mitchell Design 


173 


$49,675 


N/A 


N/A 


Priority Architectural Graphics 


198 


$42,000 


N/A 


N/A 


Wieber Nelson Design 


154 


$60,450 


N/A 


N/A 



jcCT DESCRIPTION: The winning vendor will design the signage system only. A separate 
competitive bid process will be held to select a vendor to manufacture and install signage. The design 
consultant will be responsible for the following. 

a) Phase I: Programming and Schematic Design: Survey existing library signage; assess 
effectiveness of existing way-finding; evaluate options for modifying existing signs; review ADA 
requirements; meet with library staff; review goals for in-house maintenance & updating of signage; 
develop & present schematic design options. 

b) Phase II: Design Development: Develop schematic design option selected by library staff; 
develop, submit & present preliminary construction cost estimate. 

c) Phase III: Construction Documents: Prepare construction drawings; develop sign schedule and 
location plans for all floors; deliver construction document package including construction cost 
estimate, drawings & specifications so package can go out to bid. 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of 3 



d) Phase IV: Guidelines and Budgeting: Establish procedure for staff maintenance of sign system; 
develop budget estimate for annual cost of maintenance of signage program 

e) Timeline: March-August 02 

5) BUDGET DETAILS 

a) Budget by Project Phase 

i) Phase I: Programming and Schematic Design ($20,745) 
ii) Phase II: Design Development ($9,500) 
iii) Phase III: Construction Documents ($14,000) 
iv) Phase IV: Guidelines and Budgeting ($3,740) 
v) Miscellaneous Reimbursibles ($2,015) 



Hourly Rates: 

) Principal/design, consultation ($125) 

i) Project Manager/Senior Designer ($110) 

ii) Senior Designer ($90) 

iv) Design Assistant ($80) 

v) Production Assistant ($70) 



Susan Hildreth, City Librarian 

Paul Underwood, Deputy City Librarian 

Kathy Lawhun, Chief of Main 



2/6/02 



KATE KEATING COST ESTIMATE 
Signage System Design 



Attachment II 



Library 



Principal 


Project Mgr 


Fabrication 
Cost 

Estimator 


Sr. Designer 


Design Asst. 


Production 
Asst. 


TOTAL 



Cost/Hour 



125 $ 



110 S 



90 S 



70 



Hours 



Programming & Schematic Design 
Design Development 
Construction Documents 
Guidelines & Budgeting 
TOTALS 

Programming & Schematic Design $ 
Design Development $ 

Construction Documents $ 

Guidelines & Budgeting $_ 

Subtotal Labor $ 



23 


63 




8 


78 




39 




211 


8 


25 




10 


27 




29 




99 


6 


24 




4 


31 









106 171 





15 




2 


21 









38 


37 


127 




24 


157 




68 




106 519 


2,875 $ 


6,930 


S 


800 $ 


7,020 


$ 


3,120 


$ 


- $ 20,745 


1,000 $ 


2,750 


$ 


1,000 $ 


2,430 


$ 


2,320 


$ 


- $ 9,500 


750 $ 


2,640 


$ 


400 $ 


2,790 


$ 


- 


$ 


7,420 $ 14,000 


- $ 


1,650 


S 


200 $ 


1,890 


$ 


- 


$ 


- $ 3,740 



13,970 $ 



4,625 $ 

Miscellaneous Reimbursables (e.g., travel, overnight deliveries, copying, etc 
TOTAL BUDGET 



2,400 $ 14,130 $ 



5,440 



7,420 $ 47,985 

$ 2,015 
$ 50,000 



Source: Public Library 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 20, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Item 2 - File 02-0189 



Department: 



Item: 



Department of Public Works 

Ordinance reappropriating $500,000 from the Third 
Street Light Rail Street Resurfacing Design Project and 
$2,295,000 from the Taraval Street Resurfacing Project 
for a total of $2,795,000 to various street resurfacing 
ojects in Districts 4 and 7, in the amount of $1,295,000, 
and to the Rivera/Santiago Street resurfacing project in 
District 4, in the amount of $1,500,000. 



Amount: 
Source of Funds: 



Description: 



$2,795,000 

Gas Tax Revenues from the State of California Traffic 
Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF) previously appropriated 
by the Board of Supervisors for (a) the Third Street Light 
R ill Street Resurfacing Design Project, and (b) the 
Taraval Street Resurfacing Project. 

The proposed ordinance would provide for the 
reappropriation of a total of $2,795,000 in Gas Tax Funds 
from the State of California Traffic Congestion Relief 
Fund (TCRF) to be used for local street resurfacing 
projects. The Traffic Congestion Relief Fund was created 
in the year 2000 through State Assembly Bill 2928. 
Funded by State Gas Tax revenues, the Traffic 
Congestion Relief Fund was designed to improve 
transportation systems and relieve congestion throughout 
California and can be used generally for street and road 
improvements. Ms. Tina Olson of the Department of 
Public Works (DPW) reports that the City received its 
first allocation of TCRF funds m the amount of $9,021,349 
in November of 2000 (Fiscal Year 2000-2001). DPW will 
receive approximately $3,105,000 in Fiscal Year 2001- 
2002 and anticipates four more annual allocations from 
the State Traffic Congestion Relief Fund through Fiscal 
Year 2005-2006 of approximately $3 million each. 

According to Ms. Olson, the Department of Public Works 
(DPW) proposes reappropriating $500,000 from the Third 
Street Light Rail Street Resurfacing Design Project and 
$2,295,000 from the Taraval Street Resurfacing Project, 

Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

9 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 20, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



or a total of $2,795,000, because the State Traffic 
Congestion Relief Fund monies have a "timely use of 
funds" provision and the DPW will not be completing 
these two projects for which the funds were previously 
appropriated before the respective deadlines of June 30, 
2002 and June 30, 2003, according to Ms. Olson. $500,000 
of the originally appropriated funds for the Third Street 
Light Rail Street Resurfacing Design Project must be 
expended by June 30, 2002 and the $2,295,000 originally 
appropriated for the Taraval Street Resurfacing Project 
must be expended by June 30, 2003. If such funds are not 
expended by the State-imposed deadline dates of June 30, 

2002 and June 30, 2003, then such funds must be 
returned to the State. Ms. Olson advises that the DPW 
has completed the Design Phase of the Third Street Light 
Rail Street Resurfacing Design Project for which the 
subject funds were appropriated and has realized 
$500,000 in cost savings, which, as noted above, must be 
expended by June 30, 2002. Ms. Theresa Burke of the 
DPW reports that the DPW had planned to complete the 
Taraval Street Resurfacing Project by April 2003, but, 
because of delays, the project will not begin until 2006, 
which is subsequent to the State deadline date of June 30, 

2003 for expending such funds. 

Under the proposed reappropriation, the DPW would 
expend the subject $2,795,000 on the following: (a) 
various Street Resurfacing Projects in District 4 
($499,490) to be performed inhouse by existing DPW staff, 
(b) various Street Resurfacing Projects in District 7 
($795,060) to be performed inhouse by existing DPW staff, 
and (c) Resurfacing Rivera Street from 14th Avenue to the 
Great Highway and Resurfacing Santiago Street from 
Sunset Boulevard to the Great Highway ($1,500,000), m 
District 4. This latter project will be completed by an 
outside contractor selected through a competitive bid 
process. 

According to Ms. Burke, these proposed street resurfacing 
projects were selected based on need and geographic 
equity, and because the resurfacing projects can be 
completed by the State deadlines for expending the 
subject monies. 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

10 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 20, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 

Budget: A summary budget totaling $2,794,550 is as follows: 

Resurfacing Projects Amount 

District 4 Street Resurfacing Projects $499,490 

District 7 Street Resurfacing Projects 795,060 

Rivera/Santiago Street Resurfacing Project 1,500,000 

Total $2,794,550 

Attachment I, provided by the Department of Public 
Works, provides budget details in the amount of 
$2,794,550. 

Comments: 1. Ms. Olson states that DPW is proposing the 

reappropriation of the $2,295,000 from the Taraval Street 
Resurfacing Project due to a delay in the Municipal 
Railway's L-Line Rerailing Project. As noted above, this 
$2,295,000 must be expended by June 30, 2003 or be 
returned to the State. Because of the delay in the L-Line 
Rerailing Project, Ms. Olson adds, the DPW would be 
unable to complete the Taraval Street Resurfacing Project 
by the deadline of June 30, 2003. 

2. Attachment II is a memorandum from Ms. Burke 
identifying the street locations and explaining the basis 
for the selection of the proposed projects in Districts 4 and 
7. 

3. Ms. Olson reports that expert staff in the DPW's 
Bureau of Engineering, Streets and Highway Section will 
conduct the design and construction management 
portions of the Rivera and Santiago Streets resurfacing 

n-ojects from Proposition B Half-Cent Sales Tax funds 
that have been previously programmed by the San 
Francisco County Transportation Authority in July 2001. 
Ms. Olson further reports that the District 4 and 7 
projects do not require design and construction 
management. 

According to Ms. Burke, the Department anticipates 
completing a competitive bidding process for the proposed 
Rivera/Santiago resurfacing project in September of 2002 
and awarding a construction contract in October of 2002. 
Ms. Burke further reports that DPW plans to begin the 

Board of Supervisors 
Budget Analyst 

11 



Memo to Finance Committee 

February 20, 2002 Finance Committee Meeting 



Recommendation: 



resurfacing project in December of 2002 and complete the 
project by April 2003. Ms. Burke estimates that the 
District 4 street resurfacing projects to be performed by 
DPW staff will be completed by June 30, 2002 and that 
the District 7 street resurfacing projects will be completed 
by November 30, 2002. 

4. According to Ms. Olson, DPW will fund the Taraval 
Street Resurfacing Project with future allocations from 
the Proposition B Half-Cent Sales Tax funds once the 
Municipal Railway's L-Line Rerailing Project allows the 
Taraval Street resurfacing to go forward. 

Approve the proposed ordinance. 




cc: Supervisor Peskin 
Supervisor Daly 
Supervisor Maxwell 
Clerk of the Board 
Controller 
Ben Rosenfield 
Ted Lakey 



Board of Supervisors 

Budget Analyst 

12 



District 4 Slurry Sealing Project Budget 



Class 



Title 



Description 



Attachment I 
Page I of 5 



Hourly Crew 

Rate Hours Costs 



1 1 1 






|Slurry Seal Crew 






7220 lAsohalt Finisher Supv. | S77 


8 I 


S616 


7355 |Truck Driver, Heavy 1 S69 


8 I 


S552 1 


7404 lAsohal Finisher S57 


16 


S912 


7502 Asphalt Worker S55 


8 I 


S440 




1 1 








|Crack Seal Crew 




7220 JAsphalt Finisher, Supv. | I S77 8 


S616 


7355 |Truck Driver, Heavy S69 


8 


S552 


7502 


Asohalt Worker | S55 


16 


S880 




I 


I 


|Barricade & Material Loading Support 








7355 


Truck Driver, Heavy 




S69 


8 


S552 


7328 


Operating Engineer 




S80 


2 


S160 




1 










Subtotal Labor + OH 






S5.280 






























Materials (15% of above) 






S792 


















Total Cost per Day* 






So, 072 




























Production 






55 






























Cost per block 






S2.024 










1 1 






Total Budget 


[ I S111.320 



'Assumes BSSR's standard work plan of slurry sealing 3 blocks per work day. 

* Includes Overhead of 125.20% and cost of equipment and fuel. 

* Due to the relatively low cost of slurry dust and emulsion production at the City-owned plant, the engineers have 
assumed a materials percentage cost. 

* BSSR assumes 20 normal working days to complete the work. 



Source 



DPW 



13 



Attachment I 
Page 2 of 5 



District 4 Mill-and-Fill Resurfacing Project Budget 



Class 



Title 



Description 



Hourly 
Rate 



Crew 
Hours 



'Assumes BSSR's standard work plan of 1 block per work day for mill-and-fill treatment. 
" Includes Overhead of 125.20% and cost of equipment and fuel. 

* Based on FY 00-01 data showing asphalt costs at S50/ton with the average block requiring 200 tons. 

* BSSR assumes 15 normal working days to complete the work. 



Costs 



I I I I I I 


|Grinding Crew (includes profiling) 


7220 |Asphalt Finisher Supv. | I S77 | 8 


S516 


7328 |Operating Engineer S80 15 


51,200 


7355 |Truck Driver, Heavy | I S69 40 


S2.760 


7502 |Asphalt Worker 


S55 


40 


S2.200 


I I 








(Resurfacing Crew 








7220 Asphalt Finisher, Supv. 


S77 


8 


S616 


7328 lOperating Engineer 


S80 


23 


51,840 


7355 |Truck Driver, Heavy 


S69 


30 


52,070 


7404 |Asphalt Finisher 




S57 


32 


51,824 


7502 [Asphalt Worker 




S55 


40 | $2,200 










I 






Barricade & Material Loading Support 








7355 


Truck Driver, Heavy 




S69 


8 


S552 






| 


I 






Subtotal Labor + OH| 




S15.878 






I 


















Materials (Hot Asphalt) 






510,000 














Total Cost per Day* 






525,878 












I 


Production 






15 


I 










I I 








Total Budget 




| S388.170 



Subtotal District A Projects: $4 99, 0( 



Source: DPW 



14 



District 7 Slurry Sealing Project Budget 



Class 



Title 



Description 



Attachment I 
Page 3 of b 



Hourly Crew 

Rate Hours Costs 



1 1 III 


|Slurry Seal Crew 


7220 |Asphalt Finisher Sudv. S77 8 S516 


7355 |Truck Driver, Heavy S69 


8 S552 


7404 |Asphal Finisher S57 


16 


S912 


7502 |Asphalt Worker I S55 


8 


S440 


I 






I 


Crack Seal Crew 








7220 [Asphalt Finisher, Supv. 




S77 


8 


S616 


7355 ("Truck Driver, Heavy 




S69 


8 


S552 


7 502 


Asphalt Worker 




S55 


15 


S880 














I 


Barricade & Material Loading Support 








7355 


Truck Driver, Heavy 




S69 8 


S552 


7328 | 


Operating Engineer 




580 2 S150 
















Subtotal Labor + OH| 




S5.280 




























Materials (15% of above) 




S792 










I 






Total Cost per Day* 






$6,072 






























Production 






150 








I 


















Cost per block S2.024 






I I 


I 




I 


Total Budget | S303.600 



'Assumes BSSR's standard work plan of slurry sealing 3 blocks per work day. 

* Includes Overhead of 125.20% and cost of equipment and fuel. 

j the relatively low cost of slurry dust and emulsion production at the City-owned plant, the engineers have 
assumed a materials percentage cost. 

* BSSR assumes 60 normal working days to complete the work. 






Source 



DPW 



15 



District 7 Mill-and-Fill Resurfacing Project Budget 



Attachment I 
Page 4 of 5 



Class 



Title 



Description 



Hourly 
Rate 



Crew 
Hours 



Costs 



1 1 III 


|Grinding Crew (includes profiling) 


7220 |Asphalt Finisher Supv. | $77 | 8 


S516 


7328 |Operating Engineer S80 


10 


S800 


7355 |Truck Driver, Heavy S69 


40 


S2.760 


7502 


Asphalt Worker S55 


24 


S1.320 




1 








1 Resurfacing Crew 








7220 [Asphalt Finisher, Supv. | S77 


8 


S616 


7328 lOperating Engineer 


S80 


16 


51,280 


7355 |Truck Driver, Heavy 


S69 


40 


S2.760 


7404 |Asphalt Finisher 


S57 


37 


S2.109 


7502 lAsphalt Worker | 


S55 


32 


$1,760 


1 








1 


Barricade & Material Loading Support 








7355 |Truck Driver, Heavy 




S69 


8 


S552 












[ 


Subtotal Labor + OH 






S14.573 
























Materials (Hot Asphalt) 






$10,000 


1 












Total Cost per Day* 






$24,573 


I 










1 


Production 






20 


1 






















Total Budget 


1 


$491,460 



"Assumes BSSR's standard work plan of 1 block per work day for mill-and-fill treatment. 

* Includes Overhead of 125.20% and cost of equipment and fuel. 

* Based on FY 00-01 data showing asphalt costs at $50/ton with the average block requiring 200 tons. 

* BSSR assumes 20 normal working days to complete the work. 



Subtotal District 7 Projects: $795,060 



Source: DPW 



16 



Page 5 of 5 



Rivera/Santiago Resurfacing Project 

Preliminary Engineer's Construction Cost Estimate 

Roadway Work 










?.Estlfnate(' 






^■-pfu^'Rnee^ 
LS 






Traffic Routing Work for Paving Work 



S50, 000.00 



Full-Depth Planing per 2-Inch Depth of Cut 



615,100 



SO. 



S399, 815.00 



Asphalt Concrete ( I ype A, 1/2-Inch Maximum 
with Medium Grading) 



10,000 



TON 



S65.00 



S650, 000.00 



3 1/2-Inch Thick Concrete Sidewalk 



3,550 



SF 



S8.00 



S28, 400.00 



Concrete Curb RamD 



85 



EA 



S1, 400.00 



S119.000.00 



6-Inch Thick Concrete Curb 



915 



LF 



$30.00 



S27.450.00 



8-Inch Thick Concrete Base 



14,500 



SF 



$10.00 



S145, 000.00 



Project Sign 



LS 



$2, 000.00 



Field Office for Engineer, Standard Type "B" 



LS 



S3, 000.00 



10 



Adjust City-Owned Manhole Frame and Cover to 
Grade 



14 



EA 



S300.00 



S4.200.00 



11 



Adjust San Francisco Fire Department-Owned 
Low-Pressure Hydrant Lead Valve Box Casting 
Cover to Grade 



EA 



S200.00 



S1.200.00 



12 



Adjust San Francisco Fire Department-Owned 
High-Pressure Hydrant Lead Valve Box Casting 
Cover to Grade 



EA 



S300.00 



S1.200.00 



13 



Furnish and Install Temporary 4-Inch Broken 
White/Yellow Striping 



10,000 



LF 



$0.75 



S7.500.00 



14 



Furnish and Install Temporary 8-Inch Solid White 
Striping 



500 



LF 



$1.90 



$950.00 



15 



Furnish and Install Temporary 12-Inch Crosswalk 
Striping 



5,200 



LF 



$2.90 



S1 5,080.00 



16 



Furnish and Install Temporary Double Yellow 
Striping 



50 



LF 



$2.50 



$125.00 



17 



Furnish and Install Temporary Raised Pavement 
Markers 



370 



EA 



$1.50 



S555.00 



19 



Uniformed Off-Duty San Francisco Police Officers 
(As Required by the Engineer. No Bid Required) 



Allowance 



S40.000.00 



Adjust San Francisco Water Dept-Owned 6-Inch 
or 8-Inch Valve Box Casting Cover to Grade 



EA 



S65.00 



$4, 225.00 



20 



Adjust San Francisco Water Dept-Owned 6-Inch 
or 8-Inch Valve Box Casting Cover to Grade 
(Deletable Bid Item) 



EA 



$300.00 



S300.00 



Total of Roadway Work S1.500. 000.00 



Total Projects: $2,794,550 



Source: DPW 



17 



City and County of San Francisco 




Page 1 of 1 
Department of Public Works 

Finance and Budget Division 



February 14, 2002 

Mr. Harvey Rose 

Board of Supervisors' Budget Analyst 
13S0 Market Street, Suite 1025 
San Francisco, California 94102 

Subject: File 02-01 89 - Ordinance for the Reappropriation of State Traffic Congestion 
Relief Fund Revenue 

Dear Mr. Rose: 

This letter is in response to Ms. Sarah Graham of your staff requesting that the Department 
A Public Works (DPW or the Department) explain how it chose street projects in Districts 
4 and 7 for reappropriation of Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF) money allocated to 
City during FY 00-01 and FY 01-02. 

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION METHODOLOGY 

With respect to the methodology employed by DPW to choose projects for the subject 
reappropriation of TCRF money, the Department is attaching a letter dated March 1, 2001 
sent to your office that describes the Department's general street project prioritization 
methodology in detail. As you may recall, two criteria that the Department uses in 
prioritizing street resurfacing projects are geographic equity and those that can meet the 
timely-use-of-funds requirements, when applicable, of funding programs. 

Timely-Use-of-Funds Requirement 

When DPW did its programming for TCRF money received during FY 00-01, Districts 1,2, 
3, 5, 6, and 10 had projects that could be implemented in the time frame of the timely-use- 
f-funds requirements for TCRF money. This timely-use-of-funds requirement is codified in 
Section 19(f) of Ch. 91 of the Statutes of 2000 and requires that TCRF funds be expended 
no later than the end of the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the allocation was 
made. With respect to the funds allocated during FY 2000-01 , those funds will expire on 
June 30, 2002. With respect to the funds allocated during FY 2001-02, those funds will 
expire on June 30, 2003. The statute is explicit that any funds not expended by the 
deadline would be returned to the State Controller for reallocation to other cities and 
counties. There are no exceptions to this deadline and there is no avenue by which the 
City can request an extension. 

During the FY 01-02 budget cycle, DPW chose to appropriate anticipated FY 01-02 TCRF 
money. At that time, there were two (2) projects that fit the amount of anticipated funding 
($3,1 05,000) and could meet the timely-use-of-funds deadline of June 30, 2003. These 



30 Van Ness Ave, 5th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 558-4000 / FAX (415) 558-4519 

18 



Attachment II 
Mr. Harvey Rose Pa<>e?ofl9 

February 14, 2002 
-Page 2 - 



projects were the Taraval Street Rehabilitation Project in District 4 ($2,295,000) and the 
Joost Avenue Project in District 8 ($810,000). (N.B. The Joost Avenue Project in District 8 
is still on schedule.) In June 2001 , DPW learned that it must delay its Taraval Street 
Rehabilitation Project due to a delay in the Municipal Railway's (Muni) L-Line Rerailing 
Project. 

In December 2001, the Department conducted a cash-flow analysis of the FY 00-01 TCRF 
Projects. The Department became aware that the Bureau of Engineering's Streets & 
Highways Section had delivered its 3 rd St. Light Rail Street Resurfacing Design Project on 
schedule and under budget. This performance resulted in a cost-savings of $500,000. 

Rationale for Street Projects in Districts 4 & 7 

The projects in Districts 4 and 7 best meet the Department's policies of equitably 
distributing services throughout the City as well as preventing the loss of non-general fund 
revenues. As the Taraval Street Rehabilitation Project had already been programmed for 
receiving FY 01-02 TCRF money, the Department did not wish to deviate from its 
programming of funds for District 4. 

In addition, District 4 has fifty-five (55) blocks ready to accept a slurry seal street treatment. 
Slurry sealing is a light treatment consisting of an asphalt emulsion that is placed over the 
street's asphalt wearing surface. The Department's Bureau of Street and Sewer Repair 
(BSSR) had previously crack-sealed the fifty-five blocks so that they would be ready for 
slurry sealing during FY 01-02 construction seasons. Because slurry sealing can be done 
by the Department's force account labor and because this treatment does not subject 
excavators to a 5-year moratorium, and thus does not require the Department to transmit a 
Notice of Intent (NOI), the Department is proposing that these 55 blocks be completed 
with some of the $500,000 in cost-savings from the 3 rd St. Light Rail Street Resurfacing 
Design Project that will expire on June 30, 2002. 

BSSR can also perform mill-and-fill street projects. This treatment is more substantial than 
slurry sealing. This treatment mills (i.e., grinds) areas in which the street's asphalt wearing 
surface is damaged and then it is filled with new asphalt concrete. This treatment subjects 
excavators to the 5-year moratorium of the City's Street Excavation Ordinance and 
requires DPW to transmit a Notice of Intent (NOI). The Department transmitted its NOIs in 
early January 2002 with the notification period closing in mid-May 2002. (The Street 
Excavation Ordinance provides for a 120-day notification period.) 

Attached to this memo for District 4 are matrices showing: the fifty-five (55) proposed 
cracked-sealed and ready-for-slurry sealing candidates; thirty (30) additional blocks that 
could be both crack sealed and slurry sealed in the event that there are not enough mill- 
and-fill projects; and, twenty-nine (29) blocks that could be mill-and-filled. (Similar matrices 
are also prepared for District 7 projects discussed below.) 



19 



Attachment II 
Mr. Harvey Rose Page 3 of 19 

February 14, 2002 
-Page 3 - 



The Department respectfully requests that the Budget Analyst exercise his discretion in 
permitting the Department to maintain its flexibility so that TCRF revenues are not lost. 
Because excavators have until mid-May to comment on the miil-and-fill proposed blocks in 
both Districts 4 and 7, the Department cannot make a firm commitment to assert which 
blocks will be treated other than for the 55 previously crack-sealed blocks in District 4. The 
Department intends to choose streets off these lists after receiving feedback from 
excavators that they are not scheduled to perform any maintenance or repair work on 
these streets, and thus ensure the City's investment in its surface transportation 
infrastructure as well as minimize inconvenience to residents. By granting the Department 
this flexibility, the Department will be able to maintain its ability to quickly reallocate its 
resources to maximize the TCRF funding. 

As the Department had programmed a total of $2,295,000 in FY 01-02 TCRF, DPW is 
proposing that in addition to the $500,000 in FY 00-01 TCRF that there be an allocation of 
$1 .5 million from FY 01-02 TCRF revenues reappropriated to the construction phase of 
the Rivera/Santiago Street Resurfacing Project. 

With respect to District 7, the Department again chose District 7 as it did not have either FY 
00-01 or FY 01-02 funds programmed but could be eligible for FY 02-03 funds. Again, the 
Department chose projects in this District 7 because it was able to identify streets that 
could be resurfaced with treatments that could be quickly implemented by BSSR given that 
FY 01-02 TCRF money expires on June 30, 2003. 

I hope the information provided herein addresses all of your concerns given the tight 
deadline you are operating under. If you have any further questions concerning the 
projects DPW is proposing being funded with TCRF money under this appropriation, 
please contact me at (415) 558-4506 or Ms. Tina Olson, Manager of Finance and Budget 
at (415) 554-4830. 

Sincerely, 



Theresa Burke 
Transportation Finance Analyst 

cc: Tina Olson, Finance & Budget 

Attachments: Letter to Mr. Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst dated March 1 , 2001 

DPW's Proposed Street Projects in Districts 4 & 7 for Reappropriated TCRF 



20 



List of 55 Crack-Sealed Blocks in District 4 



Attachment II 
Page 4 of 19 





STREET 


FROM 


TO 


1 


27th Ave 


Kirkham 


Lawton 


2 


27th Ave 


Taraval 


Ulloa 


3 


29th Ave 


Noriega 


Ortega 


4 


3 1st Ave 


Ortega 


Pacheco 


5 


31st Ave 


Pacheco 


Quintara 


G 


3 1st Ave 


Quintara 


Rivera 


7 


32nd Ave 


Quintara 


Rivera 


8 
9 


33rd Ave 


Ortega 


Pacheco 


33rd Ave 


Quintara 


Rivera 


10 


33rd Ave 


Taraval 


Ulloa 


11 


33rd Ave 


Ulloa 


Vicente 


12 


33rd Ave 


Vicente 


Wawona 


13 


34th Ave 


Lawton 


Moraga 


14 


34th Ave 


Ortega 


Pacheco 


15 


34th Ave 


Rivera 


Santiago 


16 


34th Ave 


Vicente 


Wawona 


17 


34th Ave 


Wawona 


Yorba 


18 


35th Ave 


Moraga 


Noriega 


19 


35th Ave 


Noriega 


Ortega 


20 


39th Ave 


Ulloa 


Vicente 


21 


39th Ave 


Vicente 


Wawona 


22 


39th Ave 


Wawona 


Yorba 


23 


39th Ave 


Yorba 


Sloat 


24 


40th Ave 


Moraga 


Noriega 


25 


40th Av 


Noriega 


Oitega 


26 


40th Ave 


Quintara 


Rivera 


27 j 40th Ave 


Santiago 


Taraval 





STREET | FROM 


TO 


28 


40th Ave | Vicente 


Wawona 


29 


41st Ave I Moraga 


Noriega 


30 


41st Ave 


Quintara 


Rivera 


31 


41st Ave 


Santiago 


Taraval 


32 


42nd Ave 


Kirkham 


Lawton 


33 


42nd Ave 


Lawton 


Moraga 


34 


42nd Ave 


Moraga 


Noriega 


35 


42nd Ave 


Noriega 


Ortega 


36 


42nd Ave 


Ortega 


Pacheco 


37 


42nd Ave 


Pacheco 


Quintara 


38 


42nd Ave 


Quintara 


Rivera 


39 


42nd Ave 


Santiago 


Taraval 


40 


42nd Ave 


Vicente 


Wawona 


41 


42nd Ave 


Wawona 


Sloat 


42 


Lawton 


31st Ave 


32nd Ave 


43 


Lawton 


32nd Ave 


33rd Ave 


44 


Lawton 


33 rd Ave 


34th Ave 


45 


Lawton 


34th Ave 


35th Ave 


46 


Vicente 


26th Ave 


27th Ave 


47 


Vicente 


27th Ave 


28th Ave 


48 


Vicente 


40th Ave 


41st Ave 


49 


Vicente 


41st Ave 


42nd Ave 


50 


Vicente 


43 rd Ave 


44th Ave 


51 


Vicente 


44th Ave 


45th Ave 


52 


Vicente 


47th Ave 


Great Hwy 


53 


Wayland 


Somerset 


Holyoke 


54 


Wayland 


Holyoke 


Hamilton | 


55 


Yorba 


39th Ave 


West End j 



21 



Source: DPW 



District 4 Slurry Seal Candidates 



Attachment IT 
Page 5 of 19 



The following is a list of Slurry Seal candidates to supplement the 55 cracked sealed candidates to be slurried 
by 3SSR in 2002. Slurry Seal candidates do not subject Excavators to a 5-Year Moratorium, and thus does 
not require the transmital of a Notice of Intent (NOI). 



Slurry Seal Candidates 


1 STREET 


FROM 


TO 


1 26th Ave 


Quintara 


Rivera 


2 


26th Ave 


Rivera 


Santiago 


3 


26th Ave 


Santiago 


Taraval 


4 


27th Ave 


Quintara 


Rivera 


5 


27th Ave 


Santiago 


Taraval 


6 


35th Ave 


Kirkham 


Lawton 


7 


35th Ave 


Quintara 


Rivera 


8 


37th Ave 


Vicente 


Wawona 


9 


38th Ave 


Rivera 


Santiago 


10 


39th Ave 


Quintara 


Rivera 


11 


40th Ave 


Lawton 


Moraga 


12 


43rd Ave 


Vicente 


Wawona 


13 


44th Ave 


Lawton 


Moraga 


14 


44th Ave 


Moraga 


Noriega 


15 


47th Ave 


Taraval 


Ulloa 


16 


48th Ave 


Lawton 


Moraga 


17 


48th Ave 


Moraga 


Noriega 


18 


48th Ave 


Noriega 


Ortega 


19 


48th Ave 


Pacheco 


Quintara 


20 


Lawton 


44th Ave 


45th Ave 


21 


Moraga 


39th Ave 


40th Ave 


22 


Moraga 


40th Ave 


41st Ave 


23 


Ortega 


44th Ave 


45th Ave 


24 


Quintara 


39th Ave 


40th Ave 


25 


Santiago 


24th Ave 


25th Ave 


26 


Santiago 


25th Ave 


26th Ave 


27 


Wawona 


37th Ave 


38th Ave 


28 


Wawona 


38th Ave 


39th Ave 


29 


Wawona 


39th Ave 


40th Ave 


30 


Wawona 


47th Ave 


Lower Great Hwy 



2/14/02 



22 



Source: DPW 



District 4 Mill-and-Fill Candidates 



Attachment TT 
Page 6 of 19 



The following is a list of M&F candidates to supplement the 55 S\uny Seal candidates to be performed by 
BSSR. These candidates have been cross-checked against the latest SCCC 5-Year Utility Excavation 
submission. (There is no work currently planned at these locations.) A field review with BSSR staff was 
conducted. However, unlike Slurry Seal candidates that do not subject Excavators to a 5-Year Moratorium, 
M&F candidates are mandated by the excavation code to transmit a Notice of Intent (NOI) 120-days prior to 
commencement of work. Experience shows that there exists the potential that the NOI process will identify 
utility conflicts and thus eliminate some of these candidates. Clearances anticipated no earlier than 
mid-Spring 2002. 



M&F Candidates i 


I STREET 


FROM 


TO 


1 


23 rd Ave 


Taraval 


Ulloa 


2 


23rd Ave 


Ulloa 


Vicente 


3 


23rd Ave 


Vicente 


Wawona 


4 


25th Ave 


Vicente 


Rosemary 


5 


26th Ave 


Taraval 


Ulloa 


6 


26th Ave 


Ulloa 


Vicente 


7 


26th Ave 


Vicente 


Wawona 


8 


35th Ave 


Pacheco 


Quintara 


9 


35 th Ave 


Rivera 


Santiago 


10 


35th Ave 


Santiago 


Taraval 


11 


47th Ave 


Vicente 


Cutler 


12 


47th Ave 


Cutler 


Wawona 


13 


48th Ave 


Kirkham 


Lawton 


14 


48th Ave 


Ortega 


Pacheco 


15 


Constanso 


Crestlake 


Escondido 


16 


Constanso 


Escondido 


Sloat 


17 


Crestlake 


End: East 


Gabiian 


18 


Crestlake 


Gabiian 


Paraiso 


19 


Elmirasol 


Crestlake 


Sloat 


20 


Escondido 


Constanso 


34th Ave 


21 


Gabiian 


Crestlake 


Sloat 


22 


Goleta 


Crestlake 


Sloat 


23 


Paraiso 


Crestlake 


Sloat 


24 


Quintara 


19th Ave 


20th Ave 


25 


Rosemary 


Taraval 


End 


26 


Ulloa | 36th Ave 


Sunset 


27 


Ulloa Sunset 


37th Ave 


28 


Ulloa | 37th Ave 


38th Ave 


29 


Vale | Crestlake 


Sloat 



23 



District 7 Slurry Seal Candidates 



Attachment II 
Pa?e7of 19 



The following is a list of Slurry Seal candidates to be performed by BSSR before 6/30/03. 
Slurry Seal candidates do not subject Excavators to a 5-Year Moratorium, and thus does 
not require the transmital of a Notice of Intent (NOI). 





Slurry Seal Candidates 






STREET 


FROM 


TO 


1 


9th Ave 


Ortega 


Pacheco 


2 


12th Ave 


Judah 


Kirkham 


3 


12th Ave 


Kirkham 


Lawton 


4 


12th Ave 


Moraga 


Noriega 


5 


12th Ave 


Cragmont 


Pacheco 


6 


12th Ave 


Quintara 


9th Ave 


7 


15th Ave 


Vicente 


Wawano 


8 


16th Ave 


Ulloa 


Vicente 


9 


16th Ave 


Vicente 


Wawona 


10 


17th Ave 


Moraga 


Noriega 


11 


Acadia 


Joost 


End: North 


12 


Aerial 


Pacheco 


Funston 


13 


Aloha 


Funston 


1 5th Ave 


14 


Aloha 


15 th Ave 


1 5th Ave 


15 


Aloha 


1 5th Ave 


Lomita 


16 


Aptos 


Darien 


Upland Dr 


17 


Baden 


Circular 


Hearst 


18 


Baden 


Hearst 


Monterey 


19 


Baden 


Monterey 


Joost 


20 


Banbury 


Stratford 


Denslowe 


21 


Banbury 


Denslowe 


1 9th Ave 


22 


Bella Vista 


Cresta Vista 


Burlwood 


23 


Brentwood 


Valdez 


Colon 


24 


Brentwood 


Colon 


Yerba Buena 


25 


Cambon 


Cardenas 


Castelo 


26 


Cardenas 


Gonzales 


Cambon 


27 


Castelo 


Cambon 


Gonzalez 


28 


Colon 


Montecito 


Monterey 


29 


Colon 


Monterey 


Mangels 


30 


Colon 


Mangels 


Brentwood 


31 


Congo 


Flood 


Hearst 


32 


Denslowe 


19th Ave 


Lyndhurst 


33 


Denslowe 


Lyndhurst 


Wyton 


34 


Denslowe 


Wyton 


Holloway 


35 


Denslowe 


Holloway 


Banbury 


36 


Detroit 


Staples 


Flood 


37 


El Verano 


Saint Elmo 


Fernwood 


38 


Elmwood 


Westwood 


Faxon 


39 


Elmwood Faxon 


End: West 


40 


Faxon Ocean 


Elmwood 


41 


Faxon 


Elmwood 


Wildwooc 


42 


Flood 


Circular 


Congo 


43 


Flood 


Conco 


Detroit 


44 


Flood 


Detroit 


Edna 


45 


Flood 


Gennessee 


Phelan 


46 


Gaviota 


Teresita 


Bella Vista 



24 



Source: DPW 



District 7 Slurry Seal Candidates 



Attachment II 
PaaeSof 19 



47 


Gonzalez 


Crespi 


Cardenas 


48 


Gonzalez 


Cardenas 


Diaz 


49 


Gonzalez 


Diaz 


Castelo 


50 


Gonzalez 


Castelo 


Font 


51 


Hazlewood 


Judson 


Greenwood 


52 


Hazlewood 


Greenwood 


Staples 


53 


Hazlewood 


Staples 


Flood 


54 


Hazlewood 


Flood 


Montecito 


55 


Hazlewood 


Montecito 


Monterey 


56 


Hazlewood 


Monterey 


Joost 


57 


Hazlewood 


Joost 


Mangels 


58 


Hearst 


Circular 


Baden 


59 


Hearst 


Baden 


Congo 


60 


Hearst 


Congo 


Detroit 


61 


Isola 


Teresita 


Rockdale 


62 


Lomita 


Lawton 


Aloha 






Slurry Seal Candidates (continued) 




STREET 


FROM 


TO 


63 


Lomita 


Aloha 


16th Ave 


64 


Los Palmos 


Teresita 


Foerster 


65 


Los Palmos 


Burlwood 


Hazlewood 


66 


Lurline 


Funston 


Kirkham 


67 


Mangels 


Hazlewood 


Valdez 


68 


Mangels 


Colon 


Plymouth 


69 


Mercato 


Start: North 


Malta 


70 


Montecito 


Plymouth 


Northwood 


71 


Montecito 


Northwood 


Eastwood 


72 


Paloma 


Ocean 


Moncada 


73 


Paloma 


Moncada 


Mercedes 


74 


Paloma 


Mercedes 


Junipero Serra 


75 


Rivera 


15th Ave 


Cecilia 


76 


Rivera 


Cecilia 


16th Ave 


77 


Rivera 


16th Ave 


17th Ave 


78 


Robinhood 


Landsdale 


Landsdale 


79 


Rockdale 


Omar 


ReDOsa 


80 


San Anselmo 


Portola 


Santa Ana 


81 


San Anselmo 


Santa Ana 


Santa Benito 


82 


San Anselmo 


Portola 


Santa Ana 


83 


San Anselmo 


Santa Ana 


San Benito 


84 


San Anselmo 


San Benito 


Santa Clara 


85 


San Anselmo 


Santa Clara 


San Buenaventura 


86 


San Anselmo 


San Buenaventura 


Santa Paula 


87 


San Felipe 


Monterey 


San Jacinto 


88 


San Fernando 


Portola 


Saint Francis 


89 


San Fernando 


Saint Francis 


Monterey 


90 


San Fernando 


Monterey 


Darien 


91 


San Fernando 


Darien 


Ocean 


92 


San Jacinto 


Santa Paula 


San Felipe 


93 


San Jacinto 


San Felipe 


Monterey 



25 



Source: DPW 



District 7 Slurry Seal Candidates 



Attachment TT 
Page 9 of 19 



94 


San Lorenzo 


Portola 


Santa Monica 


95 


Ulloa 


Granville 


Allston 


96 


Ulloa 


Dorcester 


Claremont 


97 


Valdez 


Greenwood 


Montecito 


98 


Valdez 


Montecito 


Monterey 


99 


Vista Verde 


Stillings 


End: Nort 


100 


Wawona 


Ulloa 


Vicente 


101 


Wawona 


14th Ave 


15 th Ave 


102 


Wildwood 


Start: East 


Plymouth 



26 



Source: DPW 



District 7 Mill-and-Fill Candidates 



AttachmenfJJ 
Page 10 of 19 



The following is a list of M&F candidates to be performed by BSSR before 6/30/03. 
These candidates have been cross checked against the latest SCCC 5-Year Utility Excavation 
submission. (There is no work currently planned at these locations.) A field review with BSSR staff was 
conducted. However, unlike Slurry Seal candidates that do not subject Excavators to a 5- Year Moratorium, 
M&F candidates are mandated by the excavation code to transmit a Notice of Intent (NOI) 120-days prior to 
commencement of work. Experience shows that there exists the potential that the NOI process will identify 
utility conflicts and thus eliminate some of these candidates. Clearances anticipated no earlier than mid- 
Spring 2002. 



:i,;— ^- =::v 


M&F Candidates 




I STREET 


FROM 


TO 


1 


8th Ave 


Judah 


Kirkham 


2 


3th Ave 


Kirkham 


Lawton 


3 


12th Ave 


Lawton 


Moraga 


4 


Brentwood 


Valdez 


Hazlewood 


V:p 5 


Dorchester 


; Ulloa 


Claremont : 


6 


Edna 


Havelock 


Martson 


7 


Edna 


Martson 


Judson 


8 


Edna 


Judson 


Staples 


9 


Edna 


Staples 


Flood 


10 


Flood 


Edna 


Foerster 


11 


Flood 


Foerster 


Gennesse 


12 


Flood 


Phelan 


Ridgewood 


13 


Flood 


Ridgewood 


Hazelwood 


14 


Foerster 


Judson 


Staples 


15 


Foerster 


Staples 


Flood 


16 


Foerster 


Flood 


Hearst 


17 


Foerster 


Hearst 


Monterey 


18 


Funston 


Judah 


Kirkham 


19 


Gennessee 


Judson 


Staples 


20 


Gennessee 


Staples 


Flood 


21 


Gennessee 


Flood 


Hearst 


22 


Gennessee 


Hearst 


Monterey 


23 


Hearst 


Detroit 


Edna 


24 


Hearst 


Edna 


Foerster 


25 


Hearst 


Foerster 


Gennesse 


26 


Hearst 


Gennesse 


Ridgewood 


27 


Kensington 


Portola 


Ulloa 


28 


Keystone 


Ocean Ave 


Kenwood Wy 


mms 


Lunado 


Estero 


Lunada 


30 


Manor 


Ocean Ave 


Kenwood Wy 


31 


Manor 


Kenwood Wy 


Upland Dr 


32 


Manor 


Upland 


Darien Wy 


33 


Melrose 


Stanford Ht 


Gennesse 


34 


Melrose 


Gennesse 


Lulu 


35 


Moraga 


1 2th Ave 


Funston 


36 


Moraga 


Funston 


End: West 


37 


Moraga 


1 8th Ave 


19th Ave 


38 


Ortega 


1 1 th Ave 


14th Ave 


39 


Pinehurst Wv 


Ocean Ave 


Kenwood Wv 


40 


Pinehurst Wy 


Kenwood Wy 


Upland Dr 


41 


Quintara 


18th Ave 


19th Ave 


42 


Stanford Hts 


Los Palmos 


Melrose 



27 



District 7 Mill-and-Fiil Candidates 



Attachment II 
Page 11 of 19 



43 


Staples 


Circular 


Detroit 


44 


Staples 


Detroit 


Edna 


45 


Staples 


Foerster 


Gennesse 


46 


Staples 


Gennesse 


Hazlewood 


47 


Ulloa 


Laguna Honda 


Waithman 


48 


Ulloa 


Allston Wy 


Dorchester 


,J!.49 


Ulloa 


:. -Sydney 


Laguna Honda 


5 m 50 = 


Ulloa 


a Waitman 


- Kensington 


^51: 


Ulloa 


Kensington 


Granville 1 1 


52 


Valdez 


Monterey 


Mangels 


53 


Valdez 


Mangels 


Brentwood 


- 54 


Waithman 


.; -Ulloa 


- Portola : - 


£& 55 


Yerba Buena 


Santa Clara 


Santa Paula 


-56 


Yerba Buena 


Santa Paula 


San Pablo : 


•--'57. 


Yerba Buena 


San Pablo 


Maywood g 


-v 58 


Yerba Buena 


- Maywood 


Miraloma ■ 



Shaded candidates denote NOI previously transmitted and no utility conflict reported as of 1/11/02. 



28 



Anacnmeni u 



lity and County of San Francisco 




Page 12 of 19 
Department of Public Works 

Finance and Budget Division 



March 1,2001 

Mr. Harvey Rose 

Board of Supervisors' Budget Analyst 
1390 Market Street, Suite 1025 
San Francisco, California 94102 

Subject: File 01-0276 - Ordinance for a Supplemental Appropriation for State Traffic 
Congestion Relief Fund Money 

Dear Mr. Rose: 

This letter is in response to Ms. Emilie Neumann of your staff requesting that the 
Department of Public Works (DPW or the Department) explain how it generally prioritizes 
roadway projects as well as how it arrived at its list of proposed projects for Traffic 
Congestion Relief Fund (TCRF) money allocated to the City during FY 00-01 . 

G E NERA L RESURFACING PROJECT PRIORITIZATION 

Pavement Management & Mapping System 

Since 1984, DPW has used a Pavement Management System to set priorities for 
resurfacing City-maintained streets. This system, now called the Pavement Management 
and Mapping System (PMMS) resides within DPW's Street Construction Coordination 
Center (SCCC). The PMMS is a tool that establishes a ranking that allows DPW to 
determine which streets with asphalt surfaces are nearing the end of their useful lives and 
should be resurfaced before there is damage to the concrete base. If a street's 
maintenance is deferred and the asphalt topcoat is deteriorated to the degree that its 
concrete is allowed to suffer damage, it becomes more costly to repair. 

in general, the streets of San Francisco have an average useful life of eighteen to twenty 
(18-20) years. However, a street's useful life is shortened when there is more traffic and 
heavy vehicles traveling over it. Thus, a busier street's asphalt will usually last for five to 
ten years while a quieter street can remain functional for thirty years or more. Another 
factor that shortens pavement life is utility trenching. Periodically, utilities such as PG&E or 
the Water Department must repair or replace their facilities that lie underneath the street's 
pavement. In order to reach them, the utilities must saw cut through the pavement which, 
in effect, can cause a vulnerable spot in the street. 

DPW inspects the physical condition of each of San Francisco's 12,000-plus blocks every 
two years. The streets are rated based upon ride quality (bumpiness), cracking, surface 
erosion, and the number and size of utility trenches in each block. These five rating 
components combined with traffic volume and loading, give a good estimate of how much 



30 Van Ness Ave, 5th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94102 (415) 558-4000 / FAX (415) 558-4519 

29 



AttachmentJI 
Mr. Harvey Rose Pa § e 13 of 19 

March 1,2001 
-Page 2 - 



longer the pavement on a certain block will last before it will have to be resurfaced. DPW 
then ranks the street on a decreasing scale starting with 100 (reflecting a freshly 
resurfaced or new roadway) to negative thirty-one (-31). This ranking permits DPW to see 
citywide all the streets' rankings to determine which blocks need attention first. The 
optimal time to resurface a street is when the PMMS score is between 25 and 60. 

For the street resurfacing projects DPW has proposed, the average PMMS score for those 
projects are as follows: 

Clement Street - 20 th to 45 th Ave. : 41 .3 
Geary Blvd. - 28 th to 39 th Ave. : 47.1 
Hyde St. - Fulton to California St.: 42.4 
Buchanan St. - Clay to Sutter St.: 41 .8 
Fell St. - Steinerto Stanyan St.: 44.4 

San Francisco's Excavation Code 

The City has rewritten its excavation code and has formed the SCCC to improve and 
accelerate the process of utility coordination and paving. DPW coordinates its paving work 
with utility street excavation in order to maximize the useful life of the pavement. On a 
particular block, utility excavations are performed first and then the street is paved. After 
the street is paved, there is a moratorium of five (5) years so that no one will dig up the 
fresh pavement, the exception of course being an emergency such as a utility line break. 

Once a street is cleared for all public and private utility work or coordinated with utility 
excavation projects, DPW determines the type of treatment required (e.g., partial or total 
reconstruction or simple resurfacing). DPW then determines which streets to pave based 
on the amount of funding it has available in a given year. (A copy of DPW's "The Impact of 
Excavation on San Francisco Streets" is attached for your convenience.) 

DPW's Five-Year Plan 

Each year, after developing a priority list, DPW updates its five-year plan of anticipated 
streets to be paved. Prior to scheduling a street for paving, the street is checked against 
utility excavators' 5-Year Plans of anticipated major work. Paving is coordinated with utility 
excavation projects and where possible, jointly contracted. Each street is either cleared by 
utilities of future utility street excavations to avoid excavation of newly-paved streets or 
utility excavation projects are coordinated with paving projects to extend the life of the 
pavement and to minimize disruption to neighborhoods and the traveling public. The City 
places a five (5) year moratorium for excavation on a street after it has been paved. 

Lastly, DPW makes an effort to support those streets with heavily used Muni routes and 
maintains a conscientious effort to ensure that improvements are equitably distributed 
among various neighborhoods and commercial districts throughout the City. DPW 



30 






Attachment!! 
Mr. Harvey Rose Pa ge 14 of 19 

March 1,2001 
-Page 3 - 



contracts out street improvements that cost more than $100,000 while allowing its Bureau 
of Street and Sewer Repair (BSSR) to undertake those resurfacing projects below 
$100,000. 

In Partnership with the Community 

DPW uses its Public Affairs staff to notify impacted neighbors about an upcoming street 
resurfacing project. Thirty days prior to the start of construction, DPW sends a notice to 
each address on the blocks to be paved. Provisions are made within the DPW contract 
package that requires contractors to provide access to businesses and residents so that 
me/ are not unduly restricted. Both the Public Affairs and SCCC staff are available to 
assist residents and businesses with their concerns while a resurfacing project is in 
progress. 

If DPW knows that it will need to pave a street that has suffered major damage, such as in 
the case where the street's concrete base is damaged, the outreach effort is started by 
DPW staff at least nine to twelve months in advance. This effort is a particular concern for 
DPW when a project will take place in a busy commercial district that also has heavy 
pedestrian traffic. 

For projects in which a roadway's alignment or capacity is being significantly altered, such 
as with the Embarcadero, Bernal Heights, or the Octavia Boulevard Projects, the City 
establishes Citizens Advisory Committees (CAC). 

For street resurfacing or reconstruction projects which are considered routine maintenance, 
DPW submits its list of projects to the San Francisco County Transportation Authority's (TA 
or the Authority) CAC on an annual basis as part of its Proposition B Half-Cent Sales Tax 
grant application. In general, DPWs street resurfacing jobs are funded mostly through the 
Prop. B established by voters in 1989. The Authority usually reviews Prop B grant 
applications in April and May prior to the start of the new fiscal year. As part of that 
process, the CAC reviews all the applications of Departments including DPWs. The TA 
3AC has been supportive of DPWs prioritization method for routine street resurfacing 
projects. 

Provided for your convenience is DPWs 2-Year Plan, which is a subset of the 5-year plan. 



ADDITIONAL CRITERIA USED FOR PROJECTS PROPOSED FOR TCRF 

TIMELY USE OF FUNDS 

As explained in a previous submission to the Budget Analyst's office, Section 19 (f) of Ch. 
91 of the Statutes of 2000 requires that TCRF money be expended no later than the end of 



31 



Attachment TT 
Mr. Harvey Rose Page 15 of 19 

March 1, 2001 
-Page 4 - 

the fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the allocation was made. For this 
appropriation request, the $9,021,349 was allocated during FY 2000-01, thus the funds 
must be expended no later than June 30, 2002. 

The legislation also states explicitly that any funds not expended by the deadline, in this 
case June 30, 2002, would be returned to the State Controller for reallocation to other 
counties and cities. There are no exceptions to this deadline and there is no avenue by 
which the City can request an extension. 

Lastly, under Section 1 1 .5 of AB 2928, the legislation specifically instructs counties to 
deposit these funds into their respective county road funds designated for transportation 
purposes. This requirement essentially requires counties to follow the guidelines 
associated with gas tax money made available to counties under the Proposition 1 1 1 Gas 
Tax Subvention. These guidelines specify the type of street rehabilitation projects that are 
eligible for this funding source. Thus, the projects proposed by DPW comply with those 
guidelines. 

In order to minimize the possibility of lost funds, DPW examined all of its transportation 
projects contained in its 2-Year Plan to see which roadway projects had obtained full utility 
compliance as required by the City's Excavation Ordinance and thus could meet the 
aggressive June 30, 2002 deadline. DPW's most recent 2-Year Plan is attached for your 
convenience. 

ROADWAY PROJECTS THAT SUPPORT TRANSIT 

After reviewing its list of projects that could meet the June 30, 2002 expenditure deadline, 
DPW reviewed roadway projects that also supported high-volume Muni bus routes. Based 
on this analysis, DPW prioritized the Clement St. and Geary Boulevard Roadway 
Rehabilitation Project and the Geary Boulevard and Anza St. Resurfacing Project. 
However, as described below, DPW chose to delete the Geary Boulevard and Anza St. 
Resurfacing Project from its proposed list when its geographic equity criterion was applied. 

Since DPW is aware that the 3 rd St. Light Rail Project, located in Supervisorial Districts 6 
and 10, is both the TA's and Muni's highest-priority transportation capital project, DPW 
proposed its 3 rd St. Roadway Reconstruction and Paving Project- Design Phase. While 
the light rail project is funded substantially from the Proposition B Half-Cent Sales Tax 
Program, accompanying transportation infrastructure projects, such as street resurfacing, 
were not included. Thus, in consultation with the TA and Muni, DPW ranked this roadway 
design project as a high priority. 

ADA COMPLIANCE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PROJECTS 

In the past, DPW has had limited success in gaining discretionary General Fund money for 
pedestrian safety projects. To that end, DPW prioritized its pedestrian projects that would 



Attachment II 
Mr. Harvey Rose Pa ge 16 of 19 

March 1,2001 
-Page 5 - 



have the most positive impact for safety and accessibility for pedestrians, especially those 
pedestrians who use wheelchairs, for TCRF money. Currently, DPW is proposing three 
pedestrian projects: the Curb Ramp Construction Project; the Belden Alley Project; and, 
the Fourth Street Sidewalk Widening Project. 

Curb Ramp Construction Project 

DPW Order 169,270 outlines priorities for curb ramp installations. It is acknowledged that 
funding constraints prevent the full implementation of the policy. Those priorities are: 

1) Existing curb ramps with unsafe conditions (e.g. too steep, too narrow or 
deteriorated). 

2) No curb ramp at the location. 

3) One curb ramp at the location when the federal Americans with Disability Act (ADA) 
and/or California Title 24 require two. 

4) Major utility or other physical barrier. 

5) General safe existing curb ramp that fails to meet some current standard such as 
color contrast or score lines. 

N B. Many locations fit into Priority 1 and 2 because of the conditions outlined by 
Priority 3. 

A survey report completed by DPW's Geographic Information Services (GIS) staff in 
January 2001 reveal the following statistics in San Francisco: 

6,600 intersections with pedestrian crossings 

22,500 corners with pedestrian crossings 

675 corners fall under Priority 1 (requiring 1,350 curb ramps to be built) 

6,763 corners fall under Priority 2 (requiring 13,526 curb ramps to be built) 

Over the last three (3) years, DPW has built approximately 2,500 curb ramps. Other 

lents, such as DPT and Muni have funded curb ramps construction in conjunction 
with traffic signal and transit projects. 

Many corners are still not accessible because most federal and state grants do not permit 
the reconstruction of existing curb ramps, even when there is a hazardous condition 
present. Most federal and state grants also preclude a new curb ramp being installed in a 
location that requires a sub-sidewalk abatement or utility relocation. These conditions exist 
throughout San Francisco but are often concentrated in the high use areas where access 
to service is essential. Overall, the need for curb ramps far exceeds the funding available 
to DPW. 

DPW also maintains a list of curb ramp constructions requested by citizens. Currently, the 
list is comprised of 350 locations. Most people who call are requesting one or two curb 



33 



,, u _, Attachmemn 

Mr. Harvey Rose P^TT^Tg 

March 1,2001 ° 1/OIiy 
-Page 6 - 



ramps to complete a route they need to use everyday, e.g., going to the grocery store, 
getting to the bus stop for work, to get to school, etc. Some people have been waiting as 
long as five years because the curb ramp they need built is located near a physical barrier, 
such as a utility vault that would need to relocated and is therefore ineligible for the federal 
or state funds that DPW has. Construction of these types of curb ramps alone could use 
all of the funding that DPW has programmed at this time. Thus, DPW has proposed the 
use of TCRF money for this project. 

Belden Alley 

DPW is the implementing agency of the Department of City Planning's Downtown 
Pedestrian Safety Improvement Projects, which were created in 1992. These projects are 
designed to improve pedestrian movement and safety in the downtown area, especially 
along busy sidewalks. There are a total of six defined projects: 

Powell St. Cable Car Turnaround - completed in 1994 

er St. - completed in 1999 

5t. Sidewalk Widening - Phase I completed in 1999; Phase II to begin 
Beiden Alley - awaiting construction 

Downtown Pedestrian Signage - Phase I awaiting construction; Phase II to be 
implemented once funding is secured 
Fulton Mall - completing the design phase 

Belden Alley is bounded by Pine on the north, Bush on the south, Montgomery on the east, 
and Kearny on the west in Supervisorial District 3. It is a narrow street in the City's 
downtown commercial core, is designated as a "destination alley" in the City's Downtown 
Streetscape Plan and is part of the Downtown Pedestrian Network. However, the sidewalks 
are currently substandard in width and do not conform to ADA standards. This project's 
scope of work encompasses raising the roadbed, including the concomitant drainage work, 
to the sidewalk level, thus, improving pedestrian safety, especially for pedestrians who use 
wheelchairs. In addition, this project would also provide an equity not currently enjoyed by 
Belden Alley patrons who use a wheelchair. Because of the difference in grades between 
the roadbed and sidewalk, a patron who uses a wheelchair will need to negotiate through 
the Alley to reach conveniences offered inside a building. By equalizing the grades, all 
patrons would have equal access. 

The project also includes the installation of bollards along the street for the separation of 
• ii destrian and vehicular traffic as mandated by state code. This will provide pedestrians 
with a safety zone when the street is open to vehicular traffic. By having the bollards 
clearly delineating a safe path of travel, pedestrians can quickly move behind the bollards 
when a driver wants to traverse the alley when it is open to traffic. 

For these safety reasons, DPW prioritized Belden Alley for funding from FY 2000-01 TCRF. 



34 



Mr. Harvey Rose Attachment!! 

March 1,2001 Page 18 of 19 

-Page 7 - 



Fourth Street Sidewalk Widening 

This project is the first series of South of Market pedestrian improvements. The project is 
located on 4 th Street between Market and Mission Streets in Supervisorial District 6. 

As was mentioned previously, Phase I of the project, from Howard to Clara Sts., was 
completed in the summer of 1 999. The City completed the work on the west side of 4 th St. 
be tween these streets. Sony Metreon and the Moscone Project are funding sidewalk work 
along Fourth Street between Mission and Howard Sts., which is scheduled to be completed 
in 2003. 

With respect to Phase II, the project is being funded with a combination of public and 
private funds. Pacific Resources is the private company (Old Navy and the Palomar Hotel) 
contributing $180,000 to Phase II. DPW was granted $440,000 in Proposition B funds and 
is seeking $650,000 in TCRF money to fully fund the project. 

This project is a high priority because of safety and accessibility problems along Fourth 
Street related to the growing senior residential population and increased traffic due to the 
Yerba Buena Center project. This project includes a corner bulb at Mission St. that allows 
"or a larger queuing area for pedestrians. The combination of wider sidewalks and a 
corner bulb will shorten crossing distances across 4 th Street, thus improving pedestrian 
safety. 

GEOGRAPHIC EQUITY 

DPW used geographic equity as its final screening criterion. Based on the above projects, 
the Curb Ramp Construction Project has the most far-reaching capability in spreading 
improvements equitably across the City. DPW's Accessibility Coordinator, Susan Ferreyra, 
has established a list of prioritized requests from citizens for curb ramp construction. 

With respect to its paving projects, when the geographic equity criterion was applied the 
\ lyde/Buchanan/Fell Resurfacing Project proved to be a better candidate than the Anza 
and Geary Resurfacing Project. As a standard operating procedure, DPW prefers to 
package street resurfacing projects' contracts in such a way that the projects are relatively 
close in geographic proximity and in a way that would permit contractors to pave in 
"ribbons" (multiple blocks along a single street). This combination of proximity and multiple 
blocks along one street is attractive to contractors because they are not so spread out and 
the work is substantial enough to entice companies to place bids. Thus, the more 
attractive the work, the larger the number of bidders, and hopefully a more competitive 
price for the work. 

The Hyde/Buchanan/Fell Resurfacing Project allows the Department to spread paving 
improvements across the following Supervisorial Districts: 



35 



Mr. Harvey Rose Attachment TT 

March 1.2001 Page 19 of 19 

-Page 8 - 



Hyde St. - from Fulton to California - Districts 3 & 6 
Buchanan St. - from Clay to Sutter - Districts 2 & 5 
Fell St. - from Steiner to Stanyan - Districts 1 & 5 

Projects Not Funded 

As has been stated repeatedly, the timely use of funds requirement remains the driving 
force for projects that DPW has proposed. In addition, the Prop 1 1 1 gas tax fund guidelines 
further specify eligible projects for TCRF money. DPW, like all City departments has a 
greater supply of needed projects than it has funding. A copy of DPW's 10-Year 
Transportation Capital Plan for FY 2000-01 is attached for your convenience that generally 
describes DPW's transportation projects. 

If you have any further questions concerning the projects DPW is proposing being funded 
with TCRF money under this appropriation, please contact me at (41 5) 558-4506 or Ms. 
Tina Olson, Manager of Finance and Budget at (415) 554-4830. 

Sincerely, 



Theresa Burke 
Transportation Finance Analyst 

cc: Tina Olson, Finance & Budget 

Attachments: The Impact of Excavation on San Francisco Streets 
DPW's 2-Year Plan 
DPW's Transportation Capital Plan - FY 2000-01 through FY 2009-10 



36 



BOARD of SUPERVISORS 




[All Committees] 

Government Document Section 

Main Library 



Dr 



Tel. No. 554-5184 

Fax No. 554-5163 

TDD/TTY No. 544-5227 



DOCUMENTS DEPT 



V- P T,CE ° F PUBLIC HEAR ' NG FEB 1 5 2002 

FINANCE COMMITTEE SAN FRANCISCO 

PUBLIC LIBRARY 
SAN FRANCISCO^OARD OF SUPERVISORS 

02-15-02P03:24 RCVD 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN to the general public that the Finance Committee will hold 
a public hearing on Wednesday, February 27, 2002 at 12:30 p.m., in Room 263 at City 
Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, California to consider the 
following: 

File: 020051 Ordinance amending Sections 2.4.2, 2.4.4, 2.4.10, 2.4.20.1, 2.4.20.2, 
2.4.20.3, 4.23, 2.4.40, 2.4. 41, 2.4.42, 2.4.45, 2.4.46, 2.4.50, 2.4.53, 2.4.55, 2.4.70, 
2.4.80, 2.4.81 , 2.4.83, and 2.4.85 of Article 2.4 of the Public Works Code, adding 
Sections 2.4.20.4 to Article 2.4 of the Public Works Code, and amending Sections 
1 0. 1 00-230 and 1 1 .9 of the Administrative Code to modify and adopt new definitions; 
modify and adopt new procedures for permit application submission, permit conditions, 
permit modifications, and restoration of the public right-of-way; modify fees for 
administration of permit applications and inspection of excavations; provide for a report 
to the Board of Supervisors about such fees; create a process for inspection fee 
refunds; authorize specified City officials to enforce violations of Article 2.4; increase the 
maximum assessment for administrative penalties and modify procedures for assessing 
penalties; establish a utility conditions permit fee; and make technical conforming 
amendments. 

If the legislation passes, it will increase the current admin/permit fees for excavation 
projects from $25.00 for each block ($775,000 annual revenue) to a fee of $60 for each 
permit issued for a small excavation project, a fee of $75 for each block contained in a 
medium excavation project, or a fee of $100 for each block contained in a large 
excavation project. It will also increase the inspection fee that each applicant shall pay 
to the Department from $0.80 per square foot of excavation to $15 for each permit 
issued for a small excavation project, a fee of $50 for each calendar day of a medium 
excavation project, or a fee of $75 for each calendar day of a large excavation project. 
If a permit extension is granted, the permittee shall pay $15 for a small excavation 
project or the appropriate fees for a medium or large excavation project for each 
additional calendar day for which the permit is extended to cover the cost of additional 
permit inspection. If a permit amendment is granted that results in additional permit 
inspection, the permittee shall pay the fees specified above for permit extensions. 



Data in support of the proposed fee increase is available in the above mentioned file of 
the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ten days prior to the hearing. 

For more information regarding the above, telephone (415) 554-5184 or write to Clerk's 
Office, Board of Supervisors, Room 244, City Hall, San Francisco, CA 94102. 

Persons who are unable to attend the hearing may submit written comments regarding 
this matter prior to the beginning of the hearing. These comments will become part of 
the official public record. 



Gloria L. Young, Clerk of the Board 
POSTED: February 14, 2002 




City and County of San Francisco Cit y Hal1 

J J 1 Dr. Carlton B. 

Meeting Minutes Goodiett Place 

San Francisco, CA 

Finance Committee 94102-4689 

Members: Supervisors Aaron Peskin and Chris Daly 

Clerk: Gail Johnson 

Wednesday, February 27, 2002 12:30 PM City Hall, Room 263 

Regular Meeting 

Members Present: Aaron Peskin, Chris Daly, Sophie Maxwell. 



MEETING CONVENED 

The meeting convened at 12:40 p.m. 

020284 [Controller's Six-Month Report, City's Financial Health] 
Supervisor Peskin 

Hearing to examine the Controller's six-month report detailing the City's current financial health. 

2/1 1/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Edward Harrington, Controller; Ben Rosenfield, Mayor's Budget Office. 

FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



011216 [Long-term Power Contract with Calpine Energy] 
Supervisors Peskin, Daly 

Hearing to examine the long-term contract entered into by the City and County of San Francisco and Calpine 

Energy on May 7, 2001. 

6/25/01 , RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Audit, Labor and Government Efficiency Committee. 

10/9/01 , CONTINUED. Continued to October 23, 2001 . 

10/23/01, CONTINUED. Continued to November 13, 2001. 

1 1/13/01, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Peskin; Ed Smelloff, Public Utilities 

Commission (PUC); Supervisor Newsom; Laurie Park, General Manager, Hetch Hetchy; Supervisor McGoldrick; Supervisor Daly. 

1/28/02, TRANSFERRED to Public Works and Public Protection Committee, new committee structure, 2/1/02. 

2/1 1/02, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: John Jenkel; John Bardis. 
Continued to 3/6/02. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco 1 Printed at 6:01 P\f on $,1/04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes February 27, 2002 



011585 [Minimum Compensation Requirements] 
Supervisor Gonzalez 

Hearing to consider extending minimum compensation requirements and health benefit requirements to 

businesses not currently included in the City's Minimum Compensation Ordinance and Healthcare 

Accountability Ordinance. 

8/27/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Audit, Labor and Government Efficiency Committee. 

1/28/02, TRANSFERRED to Finance Committee, new committee structure, 2/1/02. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Supervisor Gonzalez; Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, Department of Public Health; Sara 
Flocks, University of California, Center for Labor Research and Education; Brian Murphy, San Francisco 
Urban Institute; Michael Reich, University of California at Berkeley; Sheila Norman, Co-Chair, San 
Francisco Childcare Providers; Resheda Sander, Homeless; Barry Hermanson; Riva Enteen, People's Budget 
Cooperative; Renee Saucedo, Director, San Francisco Day Laborers Program; Edwardo Paloma (works for 
San Francisco Day Laborers Program); Mr. Paron, Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth; Ms. Bruno; 
Leon Chow, Co-Chair, Chinese Progressive Association; Mark Gruberg, United Taxicab Workers; Jack 
Hershman; Sarah Murphy. 
FILED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



020051 | Amending Article 2.4 of the Public Works Code and Sections 10-100.230 and 1 1 .9 of the Administrative 
Code Concerning Excavation in the Public Right-of-Way; Proposed Increases in Certain Fees) 
Supervisors Peskin, Maxwell 

Ordinance amending Sections 2.4.2, 2.4.4, 2.4.10, 2.4.20.1, 2.4.20.2, 2.4.20.3, 4.23, 2.4.40, 2.4.41, 2.4.42, 
2.4.45, 2.4.46, 2.4.50, 2.4.53, 2.4.55, 2.4.70, 2.4.80, 2.4.81, 2.4.83, and 2.4.85 of Article 2.4 of the Public 
Works Code, adding Sections 2.4.20.4 to Article 2.4 of the Public Works Code, and amending Sections 10.100- 
230 and 1 1.9 of the Administrative Code to modify and adopt new definitions; modify and adopt new 
procedures for permit application submission, permit conditions, permit modifications, and restoration of the 
public right-of-way; modify fees for administration of permit applications and inspection of excavations; 
provide for a report to the Board of Supervisors about such fees; create a process for inspection fee refunds; 
authorize specified City officials to enforce violations of Article 2.4; increase the maximum assessment for 
administrative penalties and modify procedures for assessing penalties; establish a utility conditions permit fee; 
and make technical conforming amendments. (Public Works Department) 

(Companion measure to Files 020133, 020134.) 

1/9/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cynthia Chono, Manager, Street Construction 

Coordination Center, Department of Public Works; Douglas Legg, Finance and Budget Division, Department 

of Public Works. 

Supervisors Peskin and Maxwell added as co-sponsors. 

Continued to 3/13/02. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Daly 

Absent: 1 - Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco 2 Printed at 6:01 PM on 3/2/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



February 27, 2002 



020133 [Funding to improve services of the Street Construction Coordination Center] 
Supervisors Peskin, Maxwell 

Ordinance appropriating $66,255 from Excavation Fees to increase services of the Street Construction 
Coordination Center for the Public Works Department for fiscal year 2001-02. (Public Works Department) 

(Companion measure to Files 20051 and 020134.) 

1/30/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests that Files 020051, 020133, and 020134 be 

scheduled for consideration on the same date. 

2/1/02, SUBSTITUTED. Substituted by Department of Public Works 2/1/02, bearing new title. 

2/1/02, ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cynthia Chono, Manager, Street Construction 

Coordination Center, Department of Public Works; Douglas Legg, Finance and Budget Division, Department 

of Public Works. 

Supervisors Peskin and Maxwell added as co-sponsors. 

Continued to 3/13/02. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Daly 

Absent: 1 - Maxwell 



020134 [Public Employment] 

Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 171-01 (Annual Salary Ordinance 2001/02) reflecting the creation of four 
positions at the Department of Public Works. (Human Resources Department) 

(Fiscal impact.) 

2/4/02, SUBSTITUTED. Substituted by Department of Human Resources 2/4/02, bearing new title. 

2/4/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests that Files 020051, 020133, and 020134 be scheduled 

for consideration on the same date. 

2/4/02, ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Cynthia Chono, Manager, Street Construction 

Coordination Center, Department of Public Works; Douglas Legg, Finance and Budget Division, Department 

of Public Works. 

Continued to 3/13/02. 

CONTINUED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Daly 

Absent: 1 - Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at t>:li: I'M on 3 7 04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



February 27, 2002 



020059 [Reserved Funds, Human Resources Department] 

Hearing to request release of reserved funds, Department of Human Resources (Fiscal Year 2001-02 Budget), 

in the amount of SI 0,1 73, 480 to fund the remaining salary and fringe benefits for the Special Assistant 

positions. (Human Resources Department) 

1/1 1/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the January 30, 2002 

meeting. 

1/23/02, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Edward Harrington, Controller; Steve Kawa, Mayor's Office; Jonathan 

Holtzman, Mayor's Office; Geoffrey Rothman, Director, Employee Relations Division, Department of Human Resources; Carol Isen, 

Associate Director, Local 21 ; Jean Mariani. 

Continued to 1/30/02. 

1/30/02, AMENDED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Jonathan Holtzman, Mayor's Office; Andrea Gourdine, Human Resources 

Director, David Novogrodsky, International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21; Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; 

Todd Rydstrom, Controller's Office. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $2,543,370 (1/5 of funds requested) approved. Consideration of remainder ($10,173,480) 

continued to the Call of the Chair. 

Title of hearing amended by replacing "$12,716,850" with "$10,173,480." 

1/30/02, CONTINUED AS AMENDED. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Jonathan Holtzman. Mayor's Office; David Novogrosky, International 
Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21; Abdalla Megahed. 
Release of reserved funds in the amount of SI, 271, 685 (two weeks of funds) approved. Consideration of 
remainder ($8,901,795) continued to 3/13/02. Title of hearing amended by replacing "$10, 1 73,480" with 
"$8,901,795." 
AMENDED. 

Hearing to request release of reserved funds, Department of Human Resources (Fiscal Year 2001-02 Budget), 
in the amount of $8,901,795 to fund the remaining salary and fringe benefits for the Special Assistant positions. 
(Human Resources Department) 
CONTINUED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



020125 [Reserved Funds, Treasure Island Project] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Treasure Island Project (fiscal year 2001-2002 budget), in the 

amount of $270,860 for salaries and fringe benefits consistent with other City Departments/Special Assistants 

included in the Citywide Management Classification/Compensation Plan (MCCP). (Mayor) 

1/22/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

2/6/02, AMENDED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Annemane Conroy, Executive Director, Treasure 

Island Development Authority. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $67,715 approved. (1/5 of funds requested) approved. Consideration of remainder 

($270,860) continued to the Call of the Chair. 

Title of hearing amended by replacing "$338,575" with "$270,860." 

2/6/02, CONTINUED AS AMENDED. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Jonathan Holtzman, Mayor's Office; David Novogrosky, International 
Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 21; Abdullah Nigeri. 
Release of reserved funds in the amount of $33,858 (two weeks of funds) approved. Consideration of 
remainder ($237,002) continued to 3/13/02. Title of hearing amended by replacing "$270,860" with 
"$237,002." 
AMENDED. 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds, Treasure Island Project (fiscal year 2001-2002 budget), in the 
amount of $237,002 for salaries and fringe benefits consistent with other City Departments/Special Assistants 
included in the Citywide Management Classification/Compensation Plan (MCCP). (Mayor) 
CONTINUED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at 6:02 PM on 3/2/04 



Finance Committee 



Meeting Minutes 



February 27, 2002 



020144 [Establishing Trial Rates for City Owned Garages and Metered Parking Lots] 

Resolution approving trial rates as proposed permanent parking rates, with adjustments, for the Civic Center 
Garage, the Ellis O'Farrell Garage, the 16th & Hoff Street Garage, the 324-8th Avenue Parking Lot (at 8th and 
Clement), the 330-9th Avenue Parking Lot (at 9th and Clement) and the 421-18th Avenue Parking Lot (at 18th 
and Geary) and the Performing Arts Garage. (Parking and Traffic Department) 
2/6/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Steven Lee, Parking Authority; Ronald Szeto, 
Parking Authority. 
Continued to 3/20/02. 
CONTINUED by the following vote: 
Ayes: 3 - Peskin, Daly, Maxwell 



020046 [Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company dba AT&T Wireless Lease] 

Resolution authorizing and approving a lease of cellular transmitter space at the Fire Station 30 (inactive) at 

1300 4th Street to Bay Area Cellular Telephone Company dba AT&T Wireless. (Real Estate Department) 

1/9/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. 

1/23/02, CONTINUED. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marc McDonald, Director of Property. Real 

Estate Division, Department of Administrative Services. 

Continued to 1/30/02. 

1/30/02, RECOMMENDED... Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Marc McDonald, Director of Property 1 , 

Real Estate Division, Administrative Services Department; Captain James Lee, Support Services, Fire Department. 

(An amended lease was placed in the file of the Board by the Department.) 

2/4/02, RE-REFERRED to Finance Committee. Supervisor Peskin requested this matter be severed so it could be considered separately. 

Heard in Committee. Speaker: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst. 
RECOMMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Daly 
Absent: 1 - Maxwell 



011 773 [Reserved Funds, Department of Elections] 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Department of Elections, fiscal year 2001-02 budget, in the 

amount of $253,237 for the reapportionment project. (Elections Department) 

10/2/01, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be calendared at the October 17, 2001 

meeting. 

10/17/01, CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Hearing held. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tammy Haygood. Director 

of Elections; Chris Bowman, former member, Citizens Advisory Committee on Elections. 

Heard in Committee. Speakers: Harvey Rose, Budget Analyst; Tammy Haygood. Director of Elections; 

Edward Harrington, Controller. 

Release of reserved funds in the amount of $221 ,000 approved. Consideration of remainder ($32,237) 

continued to 3/13/02. Title of hearing amended by replacing "$253,237" with "$32,237. " 

AMENDED. 

Hearing to consider release of reserved funds. Department of Elections, fiscal year 2001-02 budget, in the 

amount of $32,237 for the reapportionment project. (Elections Department) 

CONTINUED AS AMENDED by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Daly 

Absent: 1 - Maxwell 



LITIGATION 



City and County of San Francisco 



Printed at h:0: P\l on .) '2 04 



Finance Committee Meeting Minutes February 27, 2002 



Conference with City Attorney 

[Convene in Closed Session] 

Motion that the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisors convene in closed session with the City 
Attorney, under the provisions of Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) and Administrative Code Section 67.8 
(3), for the purpose of conferring with, or receiving advice from, the City Attorney regarding proposed 
settlements in the lawsuits or claims listed below. 
Unanimous vote to convene in closed session by the following vote: 
Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Daly 
Absent: 1 - Maxwell 

020247 [Settlement of Lawsuit] 

Ordinance approving settlement of the lawsuit filed by the City and County of San Francisco, acting by and 
through its Airport Commission, against CalStar Retail, Inc., by payment by CalStar Retail Inc. to the City in 
the amount of $620,000 and other terms; the lawsuit was filed on August 7, 2001, in San Mateo County 
Superior Court, Case No. 417869, entitled City and County of San Francisco, acting by and through its Airport 
Commission v. CalStar Retail, Inc. (City Attorney) 

2/20/02, RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Finance Committee. Department requests this item be scheduled for consideration at the 
February 27, 2002 meeting. 

RECOMMENDED., by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Daly 
Absent: 1 - Maxwell 



Report on Closed Session 



Deputy City Attorney Ted Lakey reported that the Finance Committee has met in closed session with the City 
Attorney, under the provisions of Government Code Section 54956.9 (a) and Administrative Code Section 67.8 
(3), for the purpose of conferring with, or receiving advice from, the City Attorney regarding settlements in the 
lawsuits or claims listed above. 



[Elect Not to Disclose] 

Motion that the Committee finds that it is in the best interest of the public that the Committee elect at this time 
not to disclose its closed session deliberations concerning the anticipated litigation listed above. 
Unanimous vote not to disclose discussion to the public by the following vote: 

Ayes: 2 - Peskin, Daly 

Absent: 1 - Maxwell 



ADJOURNMENT 

The meeting adjourned at 4:23 p.m. 



City and County of San Francisco 6 Printed at 6:02 PM on 3/2/04 

k 1 



t HOUCHEN 
BINDFRY l.TC 

UTICA. OMAHA NE 

2004